This morning in Dagenham

Pope Francis: General Audience addresses on the Church

Since the resumption of the Wednesday General Audiences after their summer break, Pope Francis has given a series of addresses reflecting on that part of the Profession of Faith that refers to the nature of the Church:

I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

The series to date do make up a very readable catechesis on the nature of the Church. The Holy Father has still to consider the "apostolic" nature of the Church (presumably this coming Wednesday?), but it was the most recent in the series, addressing the "catholic" nature of the Church, that caught my attention. The word "catholic"

... derives from the Greek “kath’olòn” which means "according to the whole", the totality.

 Pope Francis then presented his customary three points.

The first. The Church is catholic because it is the place, the house in which the faith is announced in its entirety.

This point was then developed by likening the Church to a family which nourishes its members and helps them to grow. It was the account of the part played in this by the Sacraments which struck me:

.... in the Church we can meet the Lord in the Sacraments which are the open windows through which is given the light of God, the streams from which we draw the very life of God  ...

Pope Francis continued to consider the Church as universal, and, thirdly, as the "house of harmony":

 There is a beautiful image which says that the Church is like a large orchestra in which there is variety. We are not all equal and we must not all be equal. We are diverse, different, each one with their own gift. And this is the beauty of the Church: each one carries his own, that which God has given them, to enrich the others.

In considering the Church as holy, Pope Francis first identified the holiness of the Church as being given to her by God, who gave himself for her on the Cross. He then speaks of how we as sinners in the Church are called to an experience of God's mercy and to strive for holiness.

Pope Francis opened his consideration of the Church as one by observing that:

 The Catholic Church in the world “has but one faith, one sacramental life, one apostolic succession, one common hope, and one and the same charity” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 161). It is a beautiful definition, clear, it orients us well. Unity in faith, hope and charity, unity in the sacraments, in the ministry: these are like the pillars that hold up and keep together the one great edifice of the Church. Wherever we go, even to the smallest parish in the most remote corner of this earth, there is the one Church. We are at home, we are in the family, we are among brothers and sisters. And this is a great gift of God! The Church is one for us all. There is not one Church for Europeans, one for Africans, one for Americans, one for Asians, one for those who live in Oceania. No, she is one and the same everywhere.

The first two General Audiences of the series were devoted to the theme of the Church as Mother: here and here. In all of the Audiences of this series, Pope Francis is inclined to end his consideration of a point by asking several questions of his listeners, questions which ask them how well they are living out the reality of which he has just spoken. In the first address on the Church as Mother, in what I suspect was a departure from his prepared text, Pope Francis asked a particularly poignant question of his listeners:

Let us ask ourselves: how do I see the Church? As I am grateful to my parents for giving me life, am I grateful to the Church for generating me in the faith through Baptism? How many Christians remember the date of their Baptism? I would like to ask you here, but each of you respond in you heart: how many of you remember the date of your Baptism? A few people raise their hands, but many others do not remember! But the date of your Baptism is the day of our birth in the Church, the date on which our mother Church gave us life! And now I leave you with some homework. When you go home today, go and find out what the date of your Baptism is, and then celebrate it, thank the Lord for this gift. Are you going to do it?

 Mine is the 3rd August - but I have reached an age which means I would rather not reveal the year ....

Puzzled ... but not by Pope Francis

I have been rather puzzled, not so much by the consternation in traditionally minded circles at Pope Francis' recent interviews, but by exactly what it is that is causing them consternation. At times over the last few days being puzzled has morphed into being somewhat bemused. So many of the Franciscan statements that are causing the consternation just don't seem to justify it if read properly in the context in which they were originally spoken/written, and if read in an appropriate framework (see, for example, my observations about the stages of evangelisation with regard to the "first interview").

I do think that there is a lot to be said for Elizabeth Scalia's idea that there are some of us who "get" Pope Francis and others who, as yet, do not: If we “get” Francis, we have to absorb his lessons.

I have a pet theory about why people might not "get" Pope Francis. In the media, and the social media in particular, it appears to me that, within the particular circle within which one exists, there is a danger that WYSIWYG - "what you say is what you get". If the same thing is said it can gain its own credibility just by being said many times within the same milieu; and it then just takes one or two of those with a standing in that milieu to take it up, and the thing that has been said becomes, in effect, de fide for that milieu. So if those of a traditional frame of mind keep saying X about Pope Francis, then that is what they will get, and their colonisation of the electronic media only enhances this effect.

The second part of my pet theory is that, in order to "get" Pope Francis you need also to "get" Pope Benedict XVI. It is interesting, for example, to look at how Pope Benedict conducted himself during his visit to the United Kingdom in 2010 .... and to compare it to the primacy that Pope Francis gave to "primary proclamation" and the subsequent position of moral teaching on abortion etc in the "first interview". The reference to care for life was discretely expressed during Pope Benedict's visit to St Peter's Residence and not in the form of a condemnation during his visit to Westminster Hall. If we take the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI as a whole, and not just the particular bits that appealed (or, for others, did not appeal), I believe we do end up with Pope Francis. I suspect that the traditionally minded suffer again the phenomenon of WYSIWYG, having seen in Pope Benedict XVI's exercise of the office of Successor of St Peter a project of promotion of their cause that was never there in reality.

Is what we are seeing by way of comment from some Catholics really respectful disagreement? Or is it better described as contestation? And are those genuinely perturbed by what Pope Francis has said helped if they see the causes of their concerns legitimised (unjustifiably, in my view) by comment in the electronic media?

Pope Francis: The second interview

I have a feeling - reinforced now that I have had the chance to read a full translation - that this second interview is somewhat like the first. To really get the sense of the controversial excerpts you need to read the whole, and see the excerpts situated in their complete context. This might not make them any less controversial, but it could remove some of the apparent specificness of the criticism, for example, of the "papal court".

I can't actually understand what that remark on the part of Pope Francis was getting at - it seems to read into the present situation of the offices of the Holy See an image from history that has no immediate relevance - but more of this below.

Reports of the second interview at: Whispers in the Loggia, the Guardian and the Telegraph. UPDATE: An English translation of the entire interview at La Repubblica.

UPDATE: There do also appear to be issues of translation between the original Italian and the English that is being made available. These seem to be best addressed currently by Elizabeth Scalia Re Translating Francis’ Interview with Eugenio Scalfari – UPDATED. The implications for translation of Pope Francis' remarks early in the interview about the different understandings that people have of right and wrong are ably addressed here. Elizabeth's post also gives the kind of commentary on how to respond to Pope Francis that is one I share.

Again, I can detect a certain affinity between one part of Pope Francis' remarks, as reported by Whispers in the Loggia, and the words of Pope Benedict XVI, offered in the very different and more academic context of the cancelled address at La Sapienza. First Pope Francis:

The young are "shackled in the present," the Pope said. "But tell me: can one live shackled in the present? Without a memory of the past and without the desire to throw oneself into the future: to build a project, an adventure, a family? Is it possible to continue like this? This, for me, is the most urgent problem that the church has in front of it.... It's not the only problem, but it is the most urgent and the most dramatic."

And then Pope Benedict XVI:

I would like to describe briefly how John Rawls, while denying that comprehensive religious doctrines have the character of “public” reason, nonetheless at least sees their “non-public” reason as one which cannot simply be dismissed by those who maintain a rigidly secularized rationality. Rawls perceives a criterion of this reasonableness among other things in the fact that such doctrines derive from a responsible and well thought-out tradition in which, over lengthy periods, satisfactory arguments have been developed in support of the doctrines concerned. The important thing in this assertion, it seems to me, is the acknowledgment that down through the centuries, experience and demonstration – the historical source of human wisdom – are also a sign of its reasonableness and enduring significance. Faced with an a-historical form of reason that seeks to establish itself exclusively in terms of a-historical rationality, humanity’s wisdom – the wisdom of the great religious traditions – should be valued as a heritage that cannot be cast with impunity into the dustbin of the history of ideas.

Returning to the question of the "Vatican-centric" approach of the Roman Curia to which Pope Francis makes reference. I am not at all sure that it is fair to consider the Curia to be as closed in on "Vatican concerns" as these remarks, at least as reported, suggest. I am often struck by the news releases from the Holy See after a visit by diplomatic representatives or heads of state of countries maintaining relations with the Holy See. They usually report the audience with the Pope, and then go on to refer to meetings with the relevant officials of the Secretariat of State responsible for relations with other states. The summary of questions discussed usually demonstrates an understanding by the Holy See of the situation of the nation involved and of the part that they might play on the international scene. As I write I can't find an example report to link to, but no doubt there will soon be one on the VIS website. I also think of the work of the Pontifical Councils which might not be considered as immediately part of the Roman Curia but which nevertheless contribute significant effort to the engagement of the Holy See with the wider culture of our world. The work of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers (for Health Pastoral Care), for example, does not fit a descriptor "Vatican-centric".

And to end another Francis/Benedict XVI parallel, this time about the nature of the engagement of the Church in politics. First Pope Francis:

Political institutions are secular by definition and operate in independent spheres. All my predecessors have said the same thing, for many years at least, albeit with different accents. I believe that Catholics involved in politics carry the values of their religion within them, but have the mature awareness and expertise to implement them. The Church will never go beyond its task of expressing and disseminating its values, at least as long as I'm here.

And then Pope Benedict, speaking in Westminster Hall in 2010, and articulating in a particular way a principle of "appropriate secularity" for the field of politics:

The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. 

"Who are catechists?"

Who are catechists? They are people who keep the memory of God alive; they keep it alive in themselves and they are able to revive it in others.

Once again, reading Pope Francis I feel I could be reading Pope Benedict XVI: Pope Francis' homily at the Mass for Catechists.

What is the Catechism itself, if not the memory of God, the memory of his works in history and his drawing near to us in Christ present in his word, in the sacraments, in his Church, in his love? Dear catechists, I ask you: Are we in fact the memory of God? Are we really like sentinels who awaken in others the memory of God which warms the heart?

UPDATE: And in the text of Pope Francis meeting with catechists, in Rome for the Year of Faith pilgrimage, two days earlier:

The heart of a catechist always beats with this systolic and diastolic movement: union with Christ – encounter with others. Both of these: I am one with Jesus and I go forth to encounter others. If one of these movements is missing, the heart no longer beats, it can no longer live. The heart of the catechist receives the gift of the kerygma, and in turn offers it to others as a gift.

What Maisie Knew

Zero and I went to see this film in London recently. It is a very thought provoking film.

The review of the film at the SIGNIS website gives a very good overview of the film's storyline: What Maisie Knew. To gain a sense of how the film compares - or perhaps does not compare - to Henry James' original novel, the review at the British Film Institute site is informative: Film of the week: What Maisie Knew. I suggest that you read these reviews before continuing with this post.

The film's official UK site appears to be here. It is the summary synopsis from this last site that provides an interesting observation of the intent of the film (my italics added):

A contemporary reimagining of Henry James' novel, WHAT MAISIE KNEW tells the story of a captivating little girl's struggle for grace in the midst of her parents' bitter custody battle. Told through the eyes of the title's heroine, Maisie navigates this ever-widening turmoil with a six-year-old's innocence, charm and generosity of spirit.

In this context, that term "grace" refers most immediately to a certain (human) dignity and presence that is sought amidst the chaos faced by Maisie, and which analogously indicates grace in a theological sense.

The question of marriage and relationships

As the reviews above point out, Henry James' novel was written at a time when divorce and family breakdown were relatively rare or were, at least, not recognised in the public culture of the time. Updating the film to a more contemporary setting asks of its audience a very different question than does the novel. Divorce and remarriage, and families in which parents of children are not married, are now much more common and are accepted as a "normal" part of the public culture.

There is a risk in commenting on What Maisie Knew that the particular narrative portrayed in the film is suggested as the only such narrative that occurs today; there are other narratives than the rather bohemian one shown in the film. This is a narrative starting with a divorce of married parents (though it was not obvious to me in watching the first part of the film that Maisie's parents were actually married), Maisie then being allotted ten day periods turn-and-turn-about with each parent. Re-marriage of both Maisie's parents then brings step-parents for Maisie, neither of those marriages surviving. And Maisie ends up with the (un-married) step parents finally living together in what would today be termed a "relationship".

What the film does attempt to do is to portray all of this from Maisie's point of view. And you cannot come away from the film without reflecting on just how difficult for Maisie is the fluidity and uncertainty in the movements of the marriages/relationships of her various parent figures.  This is perhaps iconically represented by the moment in the film when Maisie says " I want to go home" - and it really is impossible for the film goer at that point in the fim to know where, for Maisie, home actually is. Whilst the film shows a surprising resilience on Maisie's part - the resilience of children in difficult situations can often be under-estimated - and portrays one particular narrative that is not reflected in every experience of family break up, it nevertheless should also leave us asking some hard questions about a public culture which, through its provisions with regard to divorce and re-marriage and its societal acceptance of un-married couples raising families, creates a situation of insecurity in the care of children.

What Maisie Knew makes no reference to same-sex marriage or same-sex partnerships. A re-make in ten years time would in all likelihood do so. But, from the point of view of Maisie, does not this possibility only introduce an additional field of uncertainty and insecurity? Not only would she then face a question of "where is home?" or "who is Mum and who is Dad?" .... but also "what do the words 'Mum' and 'Dad' mean?".

Do we really want a society which brings up our children with this uncertainty in their family relationships?

The question of love

There are perhaps two moments in the film when Maisie demonstrates a sense of the meaning of the word love. One is when she says of Lincoln that she loves him; and the second occurs when Margo has been locked out of her apartment and is at that point homeless - Maisie goes and sits beside Margo on the floor outside the apartment and rests her head on Margo's shoulder. [This  latter is perhaps the most moving scene in the film.]

But throughout the expressions of love offered to Maisie by her birth parents are at once both entirely plausible and lacking in truth. Her Mum is shown dropping off Maisie at Lincoln's workplace, even when he is not there, so that she can go on tour with her band; and Dad leaves Maisie in America as he goes to Europe for work. From Maisie's point of view, there is an experience of the expressions of love made towards her by her parents - and the film portrays the genuineness of these expressions convincingly - and then of how, as she is caught between these expressions of love towards her that at the same time do not include the other parent, she gradually comes to recognise the lack that is buried away behind them. For both her birth parents, something else comes before Maisie - work and a new marriage partner.

The question that is not asked - nor answered - in the final sequence of the film is that about the un-married partnership between Lincoln and Margo. Maisie's choice is to stay with them rather than with her Mum, after she has already been shown making a choice not to accompany her Dad to Europe.

But is it really the case that an un-married relationship will provide Maisie with the security of love that has been denied her in the earlier parts of the film?

But I think What Maisie Knew really does do is pose a question to the film goer: what does the word "love" as used by some of the characters in the film - and as demonstrated by others without words - really mean? Does the protestation of one person for another that they love them really suffice as a basis for family life, or is there a more substantial objective content that needs to sit behind it?

Do we really want a society in which our children grow up with such a poor definition of what it means to love another?

Bring the two questions together

Which does bring us back to our first question about the marriage and relationships.

Today sees news reports from the leader of the Conservative Party  about a proposed tax advantage to be offered for married couples - but not one of any particular generosity and one which according to the BBC news report applies to same sex partners as well:

 "The £1000 marriage tax allowance will apply to straight and gay couples, as well as civil partners. Love is love, commitment is commitment."

David Cameron's defining of marriage only in terms of its profession of love and commitment - and without any further defining of an objective content to either term- seems to encapsulate the worst aspects of Maisie's experience. The Liberal Democrats are reported to be opposed to the measure altogether, I assume on the grounds that it does not favour single parents. They, too, seem to be somewhat adrift of Maisie's experience.

Perhaps our political leaders need to go and see What Maisie Knew. They might have their own narrative about marriage and relationships - but our children would appear to be experiencing a significantly different one. Though it would be wrong to say that the film defends one model of family over another (to use the current jargon), one cannot escape the fact that it does ask of the viewer very serious questions about how our public culture now understands love and marriage/relationships, and asks those questions in terms of what we might want for our children.

Perhaps marriage, understood as between one man and one woman for life, has something better to offer our children.....

Women in the Life of the Church

A section of Pope Francis' interview that appears not to have caught the attention of the media, be that the main stream media or that of Catholic bloggers, is the section in which he responds to a question about the role of women in the Church. This is something to which Pope Francis has made reference on other occasions, but this paragraph in his interview suggests a more systematic indication of his views on the subject.

“I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of ‘female machismo,’ because a woman has a different make-up than a man. But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo. Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed. The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role. The woman is essential for the church. Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops. I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity. We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church. The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.”

 What are the suggestions tucked away in this paragraph?

A recognition that women are asking a question about their role in the Church that must be addressed.

The affirmation of a particular charism for "the woman" in the Church, who has a different make-up than a man. This charism is analogous to that of the Virgin Mary, who is "more important than the bishops".

Rather than an effort on behalf of women in the Church that is inspired by a feminist ideology ("female machismo", in Pope Francis' words - and Pope Francis identifies much that he hears about women in the Church as having such an inspiration), we need to engage in the development of a profound theology of "the woman".

Pope Francis draws an interesting distinction between dignity and function in talking of the role of women. The theological effort just referred to can be seen as one that first seeks to address the nature of the dignity of the place of women in the Church and then, consequently to that, to develop an understanding of their function. The function needs to follow from the dignity. Is there perhaps here an indirect reference to Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem?

Pope Francis ends by identifying the challenge facing the Church on this question: the specific place of women in places where authority is exercised for various areas in the Church. His framing of the challenge in this way - in terms of an exercise of authority - seems somewhat un-Francis like until it is read alongside his earlier discussion in his interview of the idea of decision making as discernment.

A feminist agenda for Catholicism it is not.