The Church and the World: Friends or Foe?

Peter Maher*
April 2004

It is common today to use the shorthand of “liberal” and “conservative” for the theological and pastoral battle lines in the Catholic Church. The conservatives are often seen as those who like to champion doctrine and traditional devotions, while the “liberal” more likely to be involved in social justice campaigns and liberal liturgical practices. This simplistic view of things is not helpful in dealing with the complex issues the church and the world face in an age of globalisation, political and religious fundamentalism, shrinking space for difference and a hegemony of discourse that favours silence and complicity. Can we as a Catholic community work together and if so how?

I was interested to read John Allen’s article (“Debating Karl Rahner and Hans urs Von Balthasar” in National Catholic Reporter November 28, 2003) where the ideas of Karl Rahner and Hans urs Von Balthasar regarding the world are discussed. Allen argues that Rahner’s optimism about the graced world we live in leads him to opt for a practice of “dialogue with a world striving for transcendence even while sometimes erring on the objective plane”. This is based on the theology of dialogue with the world found in Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World). On the other hand, Von Balthasar has a much more circumspect approach to the world. Allen quotes Von Balthasar’s 1988 Retrospective: “Christ sent his believers into the whole world as sheep among wolves. Before making a pact with the world, it is necessary to meditate on that comparison”

If we take the view that the world is graced, we encounter deep problems with the rampart militarism, poverty, sexism and racism. What does it mean to say we are optimistic when we see greed and expediency taking hold on governments and multinationals across the globe? How can we say there is a tendency towards good in the world when we are surrounded by such questions as wars and terrorism, a disempowered indigenous population, and a spiralling gap between the rich and the poor? We are beginning to ask whether we have a sustainable world as biodiversity is ravished and climate changes raise real fears for the environment.

On the other hand, there is a sense that globalisation, emerging technologies, people power and the resilience of human creativity developing across the planet will under gird the will to survive, resist corrupt and nationalistic violence, call into question the race to the bottom and help silenced voices to re-emerge.

Clive Hamilton, an economist, offers an interesting view in Growth Fetish (2003). He argues that we can’t find happiness while we are consumed with clawing our way to the top. His research suggests that those who follow the myth that there is happiness at the end of the money rainbow are no longer quite so sure. Social gold, if not money, is to be found at the end of the rainbow called “downshifing” as he noted on a recent ABC Compass program. Downshifing means seeking happiness through a simplified life style to produce a better human outcome.

In this context we need to work beyond the division between “conservative” and “liberal”. Navigating this maze is the challenge ahead. I would like to offer a few beginning comments on a synthesis of the theological notion of the world in the Rahnerian/von Balthasar dialectic and then some pointers toward christian praxis.

As we look at the world, Pollyanna optimism is unsustainable. Christian cosmology and anthropology have something to offer. Revelation has traditionally been found in the book of the Bible and the Book of Nature. Modern cosmology is a theological affirmation of a good God creating an inherently good world and good people. Amassing wealth through violence is only part of the picture. On the other hand human imagination, ingenuity and creativity has collaborated with the cosmos to produce innovation, wonder and surprise. Even in a time of the political suicide of war and territorial and economic colonialism there is the remarkable resilience of breaking boundaries through international law, diplomacy, technology, aid and grass roots resistance to oppression.

We can maintain a dialogue between a shipwrecked world while still maintaining hope and the leaking bark of Peter. Just as a Pollyanna approach to the world is unhelpful so it is in the Church. Our boat is sinking or at least lacking in motivational energy. Whatever Balthasar had in mind, I doubt it would be the inward naval gazing and siege mentality often seen the “liberal” and the “conservatives”. Even if the Rahnerian optimism is not fully founded, the theological notion of risk as a constitutive element of faith must be reclaimed with a playful spirit of the resister. The church might be taking itself too seriously. Yes we need those who would challenge our walking into the lion’s den, but we also need those who would walk in anyway because there are strong forces in the world that understand neither the language of logic nor poetry nor history. A christian needs all three to face the world with reality and courage.

So I do not see the need to abandon Gaudium et Spes as dangerous or a temptation to relativism and syncretism. I am happy to embrace the dialogue with a world that has made massive inroads in spirituality and social justice that we may embark on a mutual search for a more just and compassionate world. But let’s not be naïve, there are elements of Christian tradition we forget at our peril. But in protecting these at all costs, we may tempt others to ignore us altogether.

Christian praxis begins with rigorous study and analysis of the features of our socio-political world, careful engagement with all of good will, a genuine attempt at interreligious dialogue and a sincere commitment to foster and support the action of grass roots progressive organisations of civil society. In the words of the Eucharistic Prayer for Masses for Various Needs and Occasions : “Keep your church alert in faith to the signs of the times and eager to accept the challenge of the gospel. Open our hearts to the needs of all humanity, so that sharing their grief and anguish, their joy and hope, we may faithfully bring them the good news of salvation and advance together on the way to our kingdom”. It is worth noting that the ecclesiological point of Gaudium et Spes on which this text is based is missed by the author of the Eucharistic prayer. The bishops of Vatican II were insistent that the identity of the christian is born of the “deep feeling of solidarity with the human race and its history”. There is a confluence of the hope and anguish of christians and all humans. These are the same, the bishops remind us. We must resist becoming cynical about human nature itself in the light of terrorism and wars waged on the basis of choice. We are asked to understand these political strategies with critical thinking in the formation of more humane strategies.

Solidarity with all humans challenges us to find our unique identity precisely in the dialogue with the human struggle. It is not in protection of doctrine that uniqueness will emerge but in the dangerous praxis of the struggle to love unto death as Jesus did. It is in the living of Christianity that its uniqueness will be revealed especially through the struggle “of those who are poor or afflicted in any way” (Gaudium et Spes No1). “Everyone will know that you are my disciples to the degree of love you have for one another” (John 13/35).

The uniqueness of Christianity does not however guarantee its correctness, nor can it accept uncritically those who choose to act in its name. But we do have a strong ethic that will work to the betterment of humankind especially when we are immersed in the struggle of the oppressed. That is why it is so important that we are seen to stand out in the moral debates that inhabit our socio-political world. Christian leaders are called to discern the ethical imperative that inspires a commitment to ask questions that lead us to think in ways that call for action on behalf of the oppressed not in self interest or the interests of the powerful. That is the message of Christ crucified. We christians are impelled by the Crucified to act, to say “no more”; let’s not repeat the unrepeatable. Fr Frank Brennan pointed out during the discussion at the Lenten series at St Aloysius College Sydney on March 16 2004, that the detention of Iraqi woman and children on Nauru with their husbands legally on temporary protection visas in Australia, while Australia bombed Baghdad under the guise of rescuing Iraqis from decades of violent oppression stands in my mind as the most unethical and morally reprehensible act of hypocrisy in Australia’s history. Christians can’t stand unmoved because the Crucified is in the face of the refugee being crucified. This is not only to say that others will not be equally as moved to act but that it is in that interaction that Christianity finds its deepest meaning.

Those who suffer are calling for leaders with moral courage. Christians might become known for their love as we work together with all people of good will.

»«