Catholicism, Church, Community, Faith, Guest Post, Prayer, Saints, Vatican II

Communion(s) of Saints

By Rev. Aaron Pidel, S.J.

Among the achievements commonly credited to twentieth-century Catholic theology is the recovery of Christianity’s “social dimension.” As the standard account goes, yesterday’s Catholics remained blissfully absorbed in a solitary quest for individual salvation, that is, until ressourcement, then political, and finally liberationist theologians increasingly rediscovered faith’s social logic, restoring it to pride of place after centuries of neglect.  Granting this for a moment as an accurate description of the evolving emphases within academic theology, we can go on to ask whether this has translated into a more communal sensibility and ethos within the Church. At this level, I would hazard, progress is less straightforward.   

In the interest of nuancing the narrative, it’s important to observe that community is “said in many ways.” Michael Sandel, in his Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982), notes that contemporary conversation tends to oscillate among three different senses of community: instrumental, sentimental, and constitutive.  The instrumental model views the community as governed by enlightened self-interest and, therefore, as “wholly external” to the individual’s identity and aims. The sentimental views the individual as emotionally fulfilled by cooperative projects and the community, therefore, as at least “partly internal” to the subject.

"Antigone in front of the dead Polynices," by Nikiphoros Lytras, 1865.

“Antigone in front of the dead Polynices,” by Nikiphoros Lytras, 1865.

Despite the differences, both the instrumental and sentimental patterns share an underlying assumption: they presume the “antecedent individuation” of the subject who allows the community to influence only the quality of his motivations, not his core identity.  In this sense, both instrumental and sentimental models remain deeply individualistic.  Members of a constitutive community, by contrast, tend to “conceive their identity—the subject and not just the object of their feelings and aspirations—as defined to some extent by the community of which they are part.” Community in this last sense is obviously most “internal” to the subject.  But, for that very reason, the lines of force between person and a truly constitutive community tend to become almost invisible. Antigone will describe her decision to bury her brother Polynices, for instance, not as “giving back” to her community but as an act of piety. Nevertheless, in granting the requirements of piety an inexorable force, she implicitly accepts her community as constitutive of her deepest identity.

It’s this unthematized communitarian sensibility that one finds pre-eminently in that Catholic piety broadly called “preconciliar.” In other words, past generations of Catholics tended to be less articulate about the importance of “being in community,” but they understood themselves as Church’s “subjects” (to use a canonical term) to an extent hardly imaginable today. According to admittedly anecdotal evidence, Catholics were formerly less prone to drive a long distance to find a parish where they felt personally connected, whether because of liturgy, preaching, or friendship, but far more likely to feel obliged to confess to a priest if they missed a Sunday Mass. In their confession they would be more likely to speak in the ostensibly individual calculus of “obligation” and “mortal sin” than in the social category of solidarity. And at first glance, then, their relationship to the community may seem merely “instrumental.” Reading between the lines, however, such an action suggests that the penitent imagines the community no less “constitutive” to his identity than Antigone’s clan. The penitently tacitly acknowledges that his life’s ultimate evaluation is tied to a right relationship to his community.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus. Church of Sts. Conrad and Vincent, Germany

Traditional devotions show evidence of a similarly “constitutive” communal sensibility. Take, as one example among many, the centuries-old devotion of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which centered on “making reparation,” through adoration and good works, for humanity’s offenses against Christ. Here the immediate object of solicitude is Jesus’s aggrieved heart. The unarticulated background to the idea of “reparation,” however, is a profound aspiration to communal solidarity and attentiveness to the demands of justice. Reparation presumes that oppressors continue to owe something to the oppressed, even beyond the grave; that grace does not simply paper over injustice, but requires satisfaction; that, whether we are aware of it or not, our sins mar an objective social order, just as our good works—by God’s grace—contribute to its restoration. And though the devotional language, centering as it does on merit and debt, draws more from the imagery of commerce than from courtship or friendship, it remains deeply social. It presumes that the baptized take part in a single economy and exchange a single currency—the rich and poor, the living and the dead, the honored and the forgotten. Within such an encompassing economy one can even, as a Jesuit friend of mine used to say, “hope backwards.” One can aim to undo the wrongs of the past sub specie aeternitatis. When properly understood, there is no solidarity more ambitious than this, even in the “utopian” visions of political and liberation theologies.

At the end of the day, then, I find myself wondering whether the alleged retrieval of Catholicism’s communal dimension isn’t so much a retrieval as a paradigm shift: from “constitutive” to the “sentimental” communitarianism. If we are now more aware of and articulate about social dimension of our faith, paradoxically, it may be that we are inwardly removed from community to such a degree that it now comes into focus as a conscious object of aspiration. In other words, we may thematize faith’s social dimension more precisely because it has ceased to be the very air we breathe.

Rev. Aaron Pidel, SJ is a Jesuit priest and a doctoral student at the University of Notre Dame in Systematic Theology.

About these ads

Discussion

3 thoughts on “Communion(s) of Saints

  1. Aaron,
    Thanks for this post which raises some good points and can be a kickoff for some good conversation. I like the idea of a need to rethink how our inner sense of faith is connected to our outward practice. I also share in your concerns about church shopping — something deeply connected to our consumer culture (Although, I have mixed feelings about this when I hear of people finding real spiritual fulfillment in going to Latin Mass across town or finding a parish where they feel welcome as a divorced parent, person of color, or LGBT Catholic at the Jesuit parish in the city).

    Something that is often missed when speaking of the impact of the Second Vatican Council is that the communitarian impulse following Vatican II built heavily on pre-Vatican II models including sodalities, devotional societies, Catholic Action, and the young Christian worker movement. The movements around the council were not, as Pope Benedict XVI reminded us, a break from the past, but a development of a rich tradition.

    Sadly, it seem very commonplace in some circles to decry and dismiss the efforts of at building a participatory church as “sentimental.” For the moment, I will not address the problematic nature of this term that carries with it a lot of sexist baggage where the sentimental is pejoratively relegated to the feminine and rational to the masculine.

    I don’t see these practices and the People of God ecclesiology as opposed to beautiful devotional traditions such as the Sacred Heart. A lot has changed in the world over the past fifty years and it is not all related to Vatican II (the loss of the Catholic ghetto culture is a big part). The lack of interest in some of these devotions in the USA (many of them related to ethnic traditions) may have more to do with cultural changes than the council. –Just look at the changes that are happening in Jewish and Protestant communities.

    In the face of individualistic neo-liberal globalization and consumerism driven by American culture, the People of God and liberation models of church are far from “sentimental.” In fact, these are radical in their ability to move people to deeper internal relationships with God and with one another.

    While I agree that too much attention to community can lead to false (external) community and detract from the radical demands of committed discipleship, it is also true that many devotions can also be individualistic and cut people off from what is happening in the liturgy, the church and the world.

    Thanks again for the post. These are just a few thoughts.

    Posted by Kevin Ahern | October 30, 2013, 6:38 pm
  2. Thanks for the thoughts, Kevin. Here are some others to continue the conversation:

    I agree that certain devotions were linked closely to ethnic traditions, but I think devotions such as a prayer for the “poor souls” and devotion to the Sacred Heart had a rather international profile. I think the rather tenuous hold that they now have on the Catholic imagination is evidence that something broader is happening. I also agree that not every change can be laid at the feet of the Council. Broader cultural shifts are afoot. Still, it’s also clear that the Council was also a catalyst for change in the broader culture, so the two can’t be neatly separated.

    “Sentimental” would naturally only have sexist overtones if one presumed from the outset that women are more prone to sentimentality. I don’t necessarily assume that. And, at least as the word is used in the post, I don’t think that women are more sentimental than men. The male-oriented fraternal orders (rotarians, freemasons, etc.) would equally fit the bill of “sentimental” organizations.

    It’s always hard to speak about a movement as broad as liberation theology, but I think one could certainly find “sentimental” elements (as defined in the essay) in such movements as ‘comunidades de base,’ which attempted to recenter the Church in “intentional” (i.e., elective rather than an ‘inherited’) communities. This often involved a process of ‘conscientization’ by which the comunidad itself became a project and explicit focus of aspiration. They would share these traits with non-liberationist movements as well, but I use that example because it is from those quarters that I more often hear the narrative of once-privatized-now-socialized-faith.

    And finally, yes, everything can be abused–even devotions.

    Posted by Aaron Pidel, SJ | November 1, 2013, 2:03 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Introducing Shark Week V…”Holy Hell?! Daily Theology considers the afterlife.” | Daily Theology - December 15, 2013

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,393 other followers

%d bloggers like this: