"Sealed for Service" - From When I Became a Deacon

 

My Pre-Diaconate Exam

I was ordained a deacon in Rome in June of 1994. I was then a member of a religious order, the Salesians of Don Bosco, and I became a deacon as part of my ministry as a Salesian. Rome is a special place to be ordained a deacon obviously because it’s the pope's very own diocese. We candidates had to take a special oral interview-exam for the diaconate conducted by professors coming from different Roman pontifical universities. This was the last hoop to be cleared before one was ordained in the pope's diocese. The exam was to take place at the Lateran University because that is the university of the local church of Rome. So we prepared for the exam and went to the Lateran University bright and early on the specified date.

When my turn to be examined came, I was directed to the exam room. There was a priest-professor waiting for me. I found out later that he was the rector of the North American College in Rome. I don't remember his name but, looking at the list of rectors online, he must have been then-Fr. Edwin O'Brien (later archbishop of Baltimore). His first question to me was a totally unexpected one: What is ontology?

I was blindsided by the question because, to my mind, it apparently had nothing to do with being ordained a deacon. But I duly answered him and explained what I thought ontology was: that it was examining the nature of reality and the totality of things in existence. I think I also went on about ontology as the study of 'being' and what constitutes a being as the word "ontology" comes from the Latin "ens" which means precisely "being."

Having listened patiently to my explanation, he proceeded to his second question which was even more baffling to me. He asked , "What’s the connection between ontology and being a deacon?"

The So-Called "Ontological Change"

As soon as I heard that, I immediately grasped what he was getting at. So, I calmed down and started to explain that being ordained a deacon means having, as it were, a spiritual "seal" seared into your very being, because standard Roman Catholic sacramental theology  teaches that the sacrament of ordination effects a character upon the people who receive them. To use a fancy yet traditional expression, the sacrament of holy orders effects--what Roman Catholic theology calls--an "ontological change" (a transformation in the person's very being) whereby the person is given an ontological character which changes them into the very thing that the sacrament signifies.

Baptism is another of these "character-giving" sacraments because it bestows an irrevocable seal, a mark on your soul that transforms you into a child of God. After all, baptism is the sacrament of initiation which transforms people--it is believed--into children of God. When you receive the sacrament of ordination (and there are three kinds: diaconal, presbyteral [priestly], and episcopal), Roman Catholic theology teaches that you are given the "ontological character" (a character that constitutes your very being) of what the particular sacrament signifies.

The Heart of Becoming a Deacon - Becoming a Servant Forever

In the case of the ordination to the diaconate, the ordinand is, therefore, marked with the "ontological character" of a deacon. And what is that character, one may ask? It is to be a servant, one who devotes oneself to the service of the Christian community, particularly in the service of proclaiming the word and offering a few sacraments and ministries that would serve the community.

As I went on explaining the connection between "ontology" and "ordination" along those lines, it seemed that the good father realized that I knew my theology and so he stopped me and said in a solemn yet calm voice,  "Do you know why I asked you those questions?"

Without waiting for my answer, he proceeded to answer his own rhetorical question. What he said struck me powerfully and I have never forgotten it to this day. He said that many candidates for ordination think that being ordained a deacon is just the penultimate stage on their path to being ordained a priest because the diaconate in the Catholic Church is still generally a "transitional" stage. That means: it is mostly conferred on men who are eventually going to be ordained as priests. My priest-examiner said that this lack of mindfulness about the diaconate is a lamentable fact because very few priests remember that, when they were ordained deacons, they were in fact given a character which remains irrevocably embedded in their souls for life. And that character is, as I said, to be a diakonos, a servant. In short, when one is ordained a deacon, one is transformed irrevocably into a servant forever because the sacrament effected this so-called "ontological" change! Hence, even if one does become a priest one day, one should never forget that one is and should always and in all cirumstances be, first and foremost, a servant.

Reflections in Retrospect

I remember quite clearly those memorable words of the priest-examiner before my ordination to the diaconate as if they were uttered yesterday. I did get ordained to the diaconate shortly after that at the Sacred Heart Basilica just beside Rome's central train station Termini. It was a joyous and memorable occasion particularly because my father flew all the way from Asia to attend it. I was surrounded by dear friends who wished me well. I served as a deacon for a whole year, most of the time at the very basilica where I was ordained a deacon. A year later in 1995, I was ordained a presbyter (priest)  this time in--what was then my home base--Tokyo, Japan.

Fast forward now some 25 years later to myself in 2021. I no longer have the official "faculties" (a kind of a "license") to practice formally as a deacon or a priest at present due to circumstances that I will not bore you with now.  I still do remember though with a grateful heart what the priest examiner told me before I was to be ordained a deacon. I don't think that the "ontological change" language is helpful anymore though. It kind of sounds arrogant and narcissistic to me. However, if you describe the diaconate as being "sealed with a character of service," I still find that symbolic language quite powerful. I have always striven to be true to that mission and that character which I gratefully received then and continue to cherish even now.

In the final analysis, what is ordination anyway? It is a sacrament conferred on a select few in order to symbolize more intensely the true nature of the Christian community and of every member thereof: a servant, a minister, a mediator like Jesus between God and one's fellow humans, a shepherd like Jesus who takes care of those under one's charge to the point of being willing to offer one's life for them. 

The nature and mission of the so-called "ordained" state therefore are not the exclusive property of ordinands, some of whom like to strut around like peacocks because of their different so-called "ontological" state. I find that attitude quite silly. They belong rather to the whole body of Christ and they ought to be conferred--I firmly think--on any Christian, irregardless of sex or marital status, who is willing and qualified. That's what I honestly think today and, in large part, that is in line with the practice of the early Church. 

The ultimate argument though for me is this: If someone can bear the image of God and of Christ (and that again is not dependent on sex or marital status), they can be rightfully empowered to represent God-Christ in a more intense way through ordination to the munus triplex (the threefold role) of "prophet, priest, and servant-king." Any quibbling about that is--I think--nothing but attachment to a patriarchal past rather than genuine openness both to tradition and to the "spirit at work in the world" today.

---

Women Deacons? "The Prayers and Tears" of Phyllis Zagano

 

From America Magazine. Dec. 18, 2019

The Diaconate and Women Deacons

On Oct 21 (2021), I attended a webinar-lecture that forms part of the Veritas lecture series at King's this year on the common theme "Seeds of Hope." It was by theologian Dr. Phyllis Zagano Ph.D. and  entitled "Catholic Women, Catholic Church: Where do We Go from Here?" She focused on her particular field of specialization which is the 'diaconate of women and its possibility today'.

First of all, there is no question that Zagano is one of the foremost authorities in the Catholic world today on women and the diaconate. I really appreciated how much work she has put into moving this theme forward and bringing it to the attention of more people. More power to you, Phyllis!

As we went on with her talk, some things became clear to me. First (this one I already knew but it was really reinforced by her lecture), historically, women served as deacons for a long time, before that precious ministry was gradually suppressed by the institutional church mainly because of a negative view of women. Hence, there is historical precedent and no valid theological reason to prevent women from being ordained to the diaconate.

Second very sad realization: Although there is historical precedent and no theological reason for barring women from being ordained as deacons, the recent history of the valiant endeavours by Catholic theologians (of which Zagano is an impressive representative) has just met with, to mention the worst, rejection, opposition, and invalid (even heretical!) counter arguments from church officials. Zagano mentioned that she was even told that women cannot represent God and Christ  by no less than an official of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). This actually appalls me and makes me angry. More on the subtle side of preventing the project of women-deacons would be the hedging, stalling, and delaying tactics of those in the Catholic institutional structure that simply do not want women to be ordained deacons. 

See for example this statement from the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research on this issue.

Zagano (and her co-theologians who support the diaconate for women) have made it clear that the diaconate is not simply a pathway to the ordained priesthood, although in normal church practice now, the diaconate is usually a step before the presbyterate ("transitional diaconate"). It is a vocation in its own right with a different character than the priesthood.  

But, I suspect (and this is just my personal impression) that the strong opposition that they have received is due to the fact that there are powerful forces within the Roman Catholic Church institution that fear that if women deacons are allowed, it will just be a slippery slope that could lead to more people clamoring for the priesthood to be conferred on women as well. And that is definitely what they are so scared of. Besides, the inability of the Church to confer priestly ordination on women has been declared as solemnly as the Church could, short of a dogma. If you want to know my personal opinion on that, you'll have to ask me personally ... 

Moreover, I agree with something Zagano said during her talk: Some male clerics simply CANNOT and/or DO NOT WANT to work with "ordained" women.

But ... Where's the Hope in This?

At the end of the lecture, despite my renewed admiration for Zagano's (and other like-minded theologians') valiant efforts to make a good case for why the diaconate could be and should be conferred on women, the effect of getting a clearer picture of the concerted efforts to prevent this project from coming to fruition in the Catholic Church left me quite discouraged, angry, and ... to be honest ... ironically bereft of hope. 

I ask in frustration: How long should we endure and tolerate an institution with a hardened heart? As someone who was ordained a transitional deacon in 1994 and a priest in 1995 but willingly resigned in 2005, I know the agony of holding hope for a long time but sadly concluding at a certain point that this intransigent and incorrigible institution is just not worth sacrificing one's whole life for. There are better things to do in life than to continually get frustrated and hurt by a fossilized structure that actively and continually frustrates--what I deeply believe to be--the genuine movements of "the spirit in the world." And one of them is this movement for conferring the diaconate on women. As Zagano affirmed, the symbol of having a woman stand beside the pope at mass as a deacon would have a tremendous effect on the Church, especially on the many discouraged, long-suffering Catholic women (and men!) throughout the world.

Sadly, I concluded many years ago that it is only when enough people stop cooperating with the dysfunctional parts of the institution and perhaps even boycott it into irrelevance that it will finally realize that a radically new transformation in its mode of being and thinking is necessary and truly have the will to ACT to realize that change. I'll believe it when I see it ... Please be easy on us who fought battles and got quite tired and discouraged ...

I sincerely hope that I'm proven wrong in this. Francis' becoming pope was a welcome surprise in 2013. Perhaps God has some powerful trick up God's sleeve? ... I wondered...   Thus, I've supported and continue to support Francis' efforts to move the church in--what I think--is a better direction. Zagano's remark is enlightening. She opined that, with this current synodal movement, Pope Francis is taking us Catholics on a two year-long Ignatian retreat. How I wish and pray that it would bear fruit!

But one man cannot do it. Ironically, the fact that a lot of things still depend on one man at the top of the Roman Catholic pyramid is the single most troubling ecclesiological factor for me. This is in fact the most damning dysfunctionality of the Roman Catholic structure: that one man can actually single-handedly stamp his seal on the billion-member institution. This has to go. It is uncannily too similar to fascism. For all we know, a super-conservative guy will be put on the throne of Peter tomorrow and voila! It'll be back to wintertime in the Church!

There should be proper checks and balances; true decision-making authority should be given to a wider circle of people (particularly, women, married people!) who represent more accurately the wide umbrella of Roman Catholicism and should not just be limited to a clique of male, ordained celibates. 

And ordaining women to the diaconate will be a VERY SIGNIFICANT baby step!

... Many thanks to Dr. Zagano and like-minded people who still give me a glimmer of hope. But God help us all --- we need more than just a glimmer!

---Julius-Kei Kato, PhD    jkato@uwo.ca   ---

How I Make Sense of the Horror of the Residential Schools in Canada

(... and other horrifying yet true stories from history)

Pair of children's moccasins are pictured at a memorial in Vancouver (from a CBC story: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-residential-schools-kamloops-faq-1.6051632)

***

This is the framework within which I, as a scholar of religion and history, try to make sense of the many true horror stories of history and the role that religion played in them. Here, I'm dealing with the discovery of hundreds (will probably reach thousands?) of unmarked graves in multiple former residential school locations here in Canada. The majority of those graves belong to the children who were treated horribly and even abused to the point of death in these schools, most of which were run by Christian churches (particularly by Catholic religious orders). 

 

Part I

A Conceptual Framework to Better Understand the Many Horrors of History (such as the Canadian Residential School System)

[1-The Ambivalence of Human Civilization] Human civilization is, in a deep sense, innately barbaric. A brief look at human history will sadly yet clearly show that wherever humans are, there too will be disagreements, mutual dislike, and even hatred. This results in acts of horrible violence. Of course, not to be forgotten, however, is that humans also have a deep core of compassion and kindness within themselves. As the saying goes, "There are two wolves within us; the one we feed more wins." 

[2-The Human Pattern of Development] Another crucial factor that plays an important role in this framework is the process of how worldviews develop in individuals (This applies also to whole civilizations). Humans in fact go through a predictable pattern of growth or development. It begins with being (in Stage #1) Egocentric at the start of life, a stage in which one is selfishly focused on one's self. From there, if humans are to develop properly, they should move on to being (2) Ethnocentric, a stage in which the person transcends one's selfishness and includes one's "tribe" or "insider group" as valuable as well.

[3-Beyond Ethnocentricity] Today, in our more interconnected and diverse world, it is common sense that one should not stop at the ethnocentric stage because there is more necessary development to undergo. From an exclusive love of one's "tribe" (ethnocentric), people should grow further into being more (3) Worldcentric, a stage in which also those considered "Others" should be valued as deserving: of at least a just and humane treatment and, if possible, of friendship and care as well. The highest stage would be being more (4) Cosmocentric, a stage in which not only humans but also other living and non-living things (our whole cosmos even!), become the objects of our concern and care. 

[4-Ethnocentricity as Dominant in History] Most people and civilizations in history though have been mainly ethnocentric. The vast majority have lived their lives viewing the world from a "tribal" point of view which is based on the following mentality: “my 'tribe' is better than others," "my tribe has a higher truth"; or even, "my tribe is the superior one among all others." That is still true even today for most of the world's population. One dark aspect of an uncritical ethnocentricity is that people who we consider "Others" are dehumanized in our worldview (they seem "less than human"). This leads to us treating them in negative ways without feeling too much guilt. Another thing to note: the ethnocentric worldview is also characterized by a “mythic-literal understanding” of the tribe’s foundational principles (aka, stories, teachings, dogmas). For example, God appointed white people to bring civilization to the whole world; Hitler is the German nation’s saviour; America is the new chosen nation of God, etc.

Important to note here: When you are in a certain stage (particularly, Stage 2: Ethnocentric-Tribal), you can only see what this stage's worldview lets you see. You find it hard to put yourself in another’s shoes (which is more characteristic of Stage 3). Therefore, you think that this tribal-centered worldview is the truth; you are not so concerned with the "others." You think their worldviews are wrong or inferior. You usually cannot think critically about the worldview of the stage you are in because that is the pond (as it were) in which you are now swimming. It follows that you can only objectively and critically evaluate lower-stage worldviews. 

[4-My "Tribe"]  My "tribe" can mean many things: my family and extended family, my clan, my village. Particularly important for our topic here, “tribe” also refers to: my race, my culture, my social and economic class, my gender, my religion, etc. It is natural to value one's "tribe" but uncritically overvaluing it unfortunately results in neglecting other groups or, worse yet, marginalizing, discriminating, and even causing harm to others.

Hence the importance in our present context of studying disciplines such as critical race theories, postcolonial and liberationist theories, and (particularly in my field of religious studies) integral theories of religion that apply developmental theories of worldviews to particular religious mentalities.

[5-"The Imperial Gene"] Human civilizations are, moreover, innately imperialistic. Imperialism is the lust for dominance and control over others that lies at the heart of civilizations. If a particular civilization acquires enough power, it is usually tempted to use that power to exert control over others. That has often happened in history when one human group moves out to conquer and dominate other groups. 

[6-Western Imperialism] At a certain point in world history, Western civilizations acquired tremendous power through advances in science, technology, and the production of goods that resulted in the development of better means of transportation, more powerful means to wage war and other intellectual and material resources. This power was a catalyst for certain Western powers to exert their dominance over "weaker" groups either in the West itself or beyond the West. When Westerners conquered other non-Western groups, they also developed a hubris that made them think that their own Western civilization was superior to the conquered ones.

I happen to apply the framework here to Western civilization because of our particular topic but it is important to remember that the barbarism, violence, imperialism, and the hubris of civilization are not only "Western" problems. They are universal problems that appear when the conditions are right or when this particular "wolf is fed." I am half-Japanese and I lived in Japan for a long time. Thus, I know very well that in Asia for example, Japan, a non-Western imperial power, is a clear example of malevolent imperialism in recent history. One can also look at the history of slavery around the world to see that it is a universal barbarism that has been practiced in varying forms in all civilizations.

[7-The Process of Colonization] Here in North America, when Westerners arrived from Europe and encountered the indigenous people who were already living here, all the above-mentioned factors came together and produced a "perfect storm" as it were, that would be disastrous for the indigenous people. The Europeans brought their civilization with them and colonized this land (as they did elsewhere in the world). While we acknowledge that European civilization has many good things in it, we must also point out that the colonization process was characterized by all of the above-mentioned factors, namely, an ethnocentric mentality that was convinced of the superiority of Western civilization and its religion (Christianity) and that looked down upon other cultures as inferior. Present also was an imperialistic lust bent on conquering people, obtaining their lands, and making the new land into a colony that would benefit the mother country at the expense of the original inhabitants of the land. This whole process, moreover, frequently utilized barbaric violence to achieve and maintain such a colonial order. 

I am referring to my present location--North America. If this process is applied though to different settings in the world and historical periods, it will show that there are remarkable similarities in the patterns that imperial powers use to colonize other people and lands. Imperialism and colonialism then are fundamental human problems. Here in North America though, the aggressors were Europeans and their descendants.

[2] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 2

 Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

Go to Part 1 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - continued

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

PARADIGM #4: The Protestant Reformation Paradigm

Kung's fourth paradigm (P#4) is one we're more immediately familiar with - that of the 16^th century Protestant Reformation. It happened to coincide with the discovery of the Bible by ordinary people. Once the new printing presses had swung into action, many thousands of copies of the Bible became available to the person on the street. It was very soon translated from Latin into the vernaculars.

Just as the Roman institution had provided Christians with a feeling of absolute assurance, so also some people found a similar assurance in the words of Scripture. The absolute institution was replaced by texts which were perceived as the absolute truth straight from the mouth of God. The fourth paradigm promoted the same need for authority as did the third paradigm and pandered to the same fear of freedom.

More profound than such similarities is the way adherence to scriptural inerrancy prevents attempts to do theology differently. In order to preserve its internal consistencies, this paradigm must perforce retain an absolute commitment to a pre-scientific paradigm of how this world works.

In this paradigm the sun must be able to stand still, people must be able to walk on water, and the dead must be able to rise again. In contrast, institutions like the Roman Church can change and yet pretend they haven't. But how can anyone move off a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy without admitting it?

From study of the Bible as God's Word to humankind came the great theory that Luther evolved in contradistinction to the fundamentalism if the institution. It's nearly impossible for many Christians today to read Paul's letters to the early Church except through Lutheran eyes, so compelling was Luther's interpretation of the infallible authority of the Bible.

Luther taught that God saves us not through any of our own works or good deeds, be they pilgrimages, or masses or earnest prayer, but only through God's grace by the sacrifice of the Father's son. That really was a paradigm revolution for those times. It blew away the monolithic medieval Christianity of Roman Catholicism.

The Reformation church is today perhaps the most dated in feeling of all the churches.

I don't know if you ever go into a United Reformed Church building or a Presbyterian church. A few have developed new liturgical forms and norms, but on the whole the classic churches of the Reformation are, as we say in Scotland, very dour. They're heavy. You get long sermons. They may be very thoughtful sermons but they're long. It's all minister-dominated. There's no colour or brightness. It's very heavy, it's serious, it's intense.

That is also it's enduring value. It produces very serious people. Presbyterian Scotland was a very serious country which, by dint of focused effort over many years, produced a strongly democratic consciousness.

It also gave birth to the Protestant work-ethic. This was fundamental to Scotland's experience and self understanding. From this paradigm sprang also a well-educated public. John Knox, the Scottish Protestant reformer, wanted a school in every parish and largely succeeded in his ambition.

Despite this enduring value, the Reformation remnant of the fourth paradigm remains depressing and sexless. If you want to have a good time, don't go to one of these places on a Sunday morning. For unless you're solidly masochistic you'll come out feeling pretty rotten about yourself.

I often think that if you want a great exemplar of the virtues and maybe of the downside of the Reformation paradigm, look at Gordon Brown, the United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to the Minister of Finance in other systems). He is a deeply serious man. There doesn't seem to be any frivolity in him. He's deeply committed to his project - but he's not exactly a laugh a minute (although I'm told that with some decent malt whiskey beside him he can be quite good company). But there's no sense of frivolity of skittishness about him. In many ways he's a brilliant exemplar of the best of the fourth paradigm.

***

PARADIGM #5: The Modern Era Paradigm

The fifth paradigm (P#5) is the modern paradigm, that of the 17^th - 19^thcenturies. It is still powerfully with us, busily influencing and interpreting how we perceive the world and our lives. Nevertheless, we're increasingly able to regard it to some degree dispassionately as we sail into new and unfamiliar seas.

[1] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 1

Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity]

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

I want to take a glance at the whole of Christian history because one of the things I'd like to get at is this widespread notion that Christianity is or ever has been a single thing.

To do this I'll use a large text, but I want to lead into it by addressing first a very slim text.

One of the most important and influential philosophical texts of the twentieth century was a short book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by an historian of science called Thomas Kuhn. Now Kuhn was a student at Harvard in the 1960s. He was a young physicist and was invited by the President of Harvard to teach a course on the history of science to humanities students who knew nothing about science. He said to himself, "You don't refuse the President of Harvard!"

In his researches and preparing the course he surprised himself. He came across something that he had not hitherto realised was the case. He had a notion of science as a kind of linear activity - a bit like those machines in a coal mine which eat into the coal face - which bites its way through the facts of the universe. He thought of science as a cumulative process in which these facts were gradually laid out.

He discovered that it was in fact a more violent, interruptive activity. Hence the title of his essay. He discovered that science operates by what he called "paradigm revolutions" or "paradigm shifts". He didn't actually coin the word "paradigm" but he did give it a new kind of meaning. He said that the scientific community worked within what it called a paradigm, a constellation of views based on experiment, a world view or set of assumptions that it operated within. This was the going, working science of the time.

The paradigm was operated until it stopped working - that is, until new questions or new discoveries began to collide with the given view. Let me give you a fairly obvious example.

Aristotelian astronomy, upon which the worldview of the entire Bible is based, proposed a three-decker universe with the earth at the centre and all the spheres going round it. The whole idea was that the earth is the centre of the system both physically as well as theologically.

That was the going paradigm. And it still works. The Ptolemaic version of Aristotelian astronomy can still operate for a yachtsperson. You can cross the Atlantic using Ptolemaic astronomy, guiding your boat by the stars. So to that extent it can still be a working paradigm.

But it was overtaken by the great Copernican discovery which was revolutionary because it said, "Ah! The earth is not the thing which everything else goes round. In fact, we go round the sun."

You'll recall the great struggle which then took place. This was because the new paradigm appeared to contradict both the biblical account as well as the going scientific paradigm. Interestingly, it was only fairly recently that the Pope gave the sun permission to be the centre of the solar system.

What happens then is that you get a working set of systems which operates quite satisfactorily until along comes new knowledge, usually discovered by creatures of genius. They begin to ask questions about the old paradigm. Those who use the old paradigm resist the new - and it is entirely right that they should do so. One doesn't want to keep changing a world view which works. It's a confounded nuisance if you're switching paradigms every few years. You need to get traction, a bit of tradition and leverage on the thing.

So you make it work as long as you possibly can. You use it to try to answer the new information which is coming in. There's also in some people a natural kind of conservatism which doesn't like any kind of change. They prefer the going paradigm to anything which is coming down the road. They do so for purely temperamental reasons - but it's also true that the scientific method itself inherently tests new data until it overturns the old. And then you get a paradigm revolution and you move on.

Kuhn's little book has influenced philosophers, culture critics and theologians since the early 1960s. I want to look now at a great text which has applied Kuhn's conclusions about paradigms to Christianity.

The greatest living theologian is Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic. His is the "large text" to which I referred earlier. He doesn't have the Pope's driving licence because he wrote a book in the seventies attacking the doctrine of infallibility and he had his licence to teach withdrawn.

He still teaches theology at Tübingen University but he teaches it in a secular setting (2020-no longer teaching). Quite movingly, he's an old man now and he would like to get his licence back. He'd like to die, as it were, in peace with the Roman Church. But he has been told that he will only get the licence back if he commits to the doctrine of infallibility.

So he will have to sacrifice his conscience to get back inside the Church (which shows you how corrupt churches are). I doubt if he will do that because his whole being has been one of challenge. He's been a sort of Protestant theologian in the midst of Catholicism.

Kung set himself a few years ago an enormous task. He wanted to describe the religious situation of our day. He conceived three volumes - one on Christianity, one on Judaism and one on Islam (2020-they are all published).

He applies paradigm theory to religion. He says that contrary to what we all think, religion has been a story of shifting paradigms - an essentially dynamic, changing enterprise.

I want to race through his application of paradigm theory to Christianity. He says there have been five Christian paradigms. As we'll see, these paradigms are all still in operation. In science, new paradigms succeed, complete and often oust those that came before. In Christianity, religious paradigms never seem to get discarded or superannuated. They simply get stacked up like trays in the trolleys of self-service restaurants.

[5] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 5)

 

A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 4

Part 5 - Paradigm #5 : The Modern Era Paradigm - Challenges to Christianity 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

 

[17] Revolutions of the Modern Age

René Descartes (1596–1650)

Was the father of modern rationalist philosophy and marked a “Copernican Revolution” in the way of thinking: the whole of reality is constituted by the human subject (“I think therefore I am” Latin, Cogito ergo sum)

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)

Was the protagonist of the new empirical-mathematical natural science which was the basis for the technological and industrial revolution that reached its first climax in the 19^th century

Cardinal Richelieu [Armand Jean du Plessis] (1585–1642)

Was the mastermind and practitioner of a new understanding of the State and of politics: what counts is not the confessional or religious-moral point of view but rather practical politics in pursuit of national interests. The state is the natural product of a contract between the people and their rulers and is thus autonomous in relation to the Church.

The French Revolution

In the wake of runaway inflation and mass misery, the Estates-General convened in May 1789. In
June, the Third Estate, representing 98% of the population over against clergy and nobility, proclaimed itself to be the “National Assembly” and challenged the power of the king. On July 14, 1789, the people of Paris took up arms (“Storm the Bastille”). On Aug. 4, the National Assembly abolished feudalism, putting an end to the “Ancien Régime”, and on Aug. 26, it proclaimed the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.”

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)

The basic principle of the Declaration was that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” (Article 1), which were specified as the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to oppression (Article 2). All citizens were equal before the law and were to have the right to participate in legislation directly or indirectly (Article 6); no one was to be arrested without a judicial order (Article 7). Freedom of religion (Article 10) and freedom of speech (Article 11) were safeguarded within the bounds of public “order” and “law.” The document reflects the interests of the elites who wrote it: property was given the status of an inviolable right, which could be taken by the state only if an indemnity were given (Article 17); offices and position were opened to all citizens (Article 6).

 

[18] Challenges to the Christian Churches in the Future

1. Dialogue with other confessions and, in time, with other religions.

2. Demands of the Enlightenment: freedom of religion and of conscience, freedom of assembly, of speech and of the press.

3. Leading values: “rationality”, “progress”, “nation”.

4. Relativization of Christianity in European guise: instead of a Europe-centered Christian perspective on the world, a multi-centred worldview embracing diverse regions and religions.

 

--END OF SERIES 5/5--

[3] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 3)

 A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 2

Part 3 - Paradigm #3 : The Medieval Roman Catholic Paradigm 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

[8] Rome: Primacy of Honour in the Early Church and the Process of Latinization

•         The Jewish roots of Christianity were forgotten by a church characterized first by Greek then by Latin culture.

•         In Rome, between 360 and 382, Latin replaced Greek as the language of the liturgy.

•         The basilica, originally a large hall for secular affairs, became the model of church architecture.

•         The thanksgiving meal (Eucharist) was gradually transformed into
a sacrificial offering: the table became an altar.

 

 

[9] The Pope – Successor of St Peter? – “No”, “Yes”, or “It’s Complicated”?

•         No evidence in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome.

•         No evidence for an immediate “successor” to Peter, not even in Rome.

•         No mention of a bishop of Rome in the New Testament or in the earliest Christian sources …

•         not in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and not in the Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians.

 

•         Nevertheless, early evidence for the graves of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome.

•         Around the middle of the 3rd Century, Bishop Stephen of Rome viewed himself as the successor of Peter and claimed a primacy over all other bishops.

•        (this part by jkk) Historically speaking then, it seems that the following idea: <the Pope is the literal successor of Peter who holds full authority [over all bishops in the Christian world], received in an unbroken chain of tradition going from the present pope all the way up to Peter himself who, in turn, received his authority as pope from Jesus himself> has to be re-evaluated very critically. It is not true in the literal sense. It can be considered an anachronism because the popes increasingly claimed this only later in history. The Eastern Orthodox churches (some of which are even older than Rome itself) have not accepted this. It remains the main block to unity among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. However, it is true that the pope as bishop of Rome has had a unique place of honour (a “primacy of honour” and primus inter pares “first among equals”) in the history of Christianity from ancient times.  (jkk)

 

 

Who is a Christian? Who is Jesus, the Christ? What are the Practical Consequences of Christian Faith?

(These 20 theses were originally proposed by theologian Hans Küng in "The Christian Challenge" [1979], pp. 313-316, which in turn is based on his “On Being a Christian” [1974]. This version has been extensively revised by Julius-Kei Kato)

Yes, I know that all attempts at summarizing complex things are imperfect. But "summaries" have their own usefulness. You have to begin somewhere in order to get an idea of the WHOLE and having a sense of the whole is indeed an important thing. Only then can you begin to add and revise, subtract and challenge, and so forth. This summary of what it means to be a Christian (based on Hans Küng's proposals although extensively revised and rephrased by me) is meant to be just a "springboard" or a "working document." Do not treat it as written in stone.

      Who is a Christian?

#1 Being Human – Being Christian |  The most important thing about being human is striving to live one’s human and social life to the full in an ethical way. Being Christian is a particular way of being human that has distinctive characteristics. The Christian is someone who tries to live their human, social, and spiritual-religious life in the light of Jesus Christ. In practice, that means: following Jesus, living according to his teachings and example, and having a relationship with God through faith and hope in Jesus Christ.

#2 The Distinctive Christian Reality |  The distinctive Christian reality then is the very person of Jesus Christ himself. Hence, the Christian has to have a good familiarity with Jesus and this starts with a good knowledge particularly of Jesus’s historical context as we can deduce from a good study of the gospels.

#3 Being a Christian means… | In short, being a Christian means: FOLLOWING JESUS CHRIST (In Latin, Sequela Christi). By following Jesus Christ, Christians in the world of today can truly live their human lives to the full. In effect, that means that Christians can love, act, suffer, and die; they can go through joys and sorrows, through life and death while being helpful to others and sustained by God in all of these. 

Who is Jesus, the Christ?

#4  Jesus as Provocative |  Jesus of Nazareth, a historical person who lived in the first half of the first century Common Era, is believed by Christians to be “the Christ” (the anointed one of God). As a historical person, Jesus was neither a priest nor a political revolutionary, neither an ascetic monk nor just a devout ethical teacher of right or wrong. He was originally from the peasant class. At a certain point in his life, he became a public figure who healed, taught, and gathered people, especially the marginalized ones, into fellowship. In his lifestyle, Jesus was “provocative” especially for those who kept the established “status quo” and “order” of the times.

#5 Jesus proclaimed the reign of God |  Jesus did not primarily proclaim theological theories or new laws, nor did he explicitly proclaim himself (contrary to the impression we get particularly in John’s gospel). Rather, he proclaimed the coming of the “kingdom” (or the “reign”) of God. This refers to God’s cause-God’s “order”-God’s will, which—Jesus believed—would be soon realized here on earth, and which is identical with humanity’s cause (=humanity’s true well-being).

#6  Jesus’s struggle on behalf of humanity |  For the sake of human well-being which is what God wills (Jesus labeled this “for the Kingdom of God”), Jesus was prepared even to relativize sacred institutions, law, and cult. In a deep sense, we can say then that Jesus was a humanist, who believed that humans and humanity—a humanity that is in relationship with transcendent reality (=God)--is worth struggling and even dying for.

Further Thoughts on the Jean Vanier Revelations: (Nefarious) Weeds among the Wheat

I continue my efforts to make sense of the distressing revelations that Jean Vanier (JV), the once highly-esteemed founder of l'Arche, did himself engage in the sexual abuse of at least six women who sought spiritual direction from him, something that his mentor and spiritual father, Fr. Thomas Philippe, also did to others (according to the l'Arche report). My "initial thoughts on the Jean Vanier revelations" can be found here.


"Tradition" "Family"
Let me frame these disheartening revelations in the wider context of "tradition" and how we deal with the dark sides of the tradition(s) we belong to. In order to make this hit closer to home (as it does for many of us), the word "tradition" can even be replaced by "family". How do we deal with the dark, even sinister aspects of our tradition, of our family?

Let's recall that, in various senses, each of us belongs to a "tradition" and to a "family." It is a truism of course that we don't usually choose our traditions and families; we're just born into them. And, as we all know too well, no family is perfect. Some families are not only imperfect, they contain very dark and sinister elements within them. This holds true many times for the groups or the relationships we enter into. No one can perfectly know a potential "friend" or a group one can possibly join at the beginning of the relationship. Unfortunately, we often find ourselves already in a relationship with persons or with groups before we find out the darkness in them.

In the wake of these revelations about Jean Vanier, the reason why I bring up 'traditions and families' here is that I'm thinking of l'Arche above all. I know quite a few people who consider l'Arche their family in a deep sense. How are they holding up now? How do they deal with the destruction of the founder Jean Vanier's holy image after these credible allegations that he himself engaged in sexual abuse?

And then there are the scores of people who may not be strictly connected with l'Arche but whose lives have been touched for the better by Jean Vanier, directly or indirectly, maybe through l'Arche, maybe through JV's teachings received in various forms, or perhaps even just through the high esteem in which JV was held for a long time by many people before the publication of the damning report on his abusive practices. All of us (and I count myself one of those touched by Vanier) have now to make sense of the figure and legacy of Vanier in the light of these recent revelations of sexual abuse by the once-revered founder. How do we go about doing this?

The Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat

There is an intriguing parable of Jesus in Matthew 13:24-30 (NIV version) which, I feel, could speak powerfully to the situation at hand. It goes like this:

The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. ²⁵ But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. ²⁶ When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

²⁷ “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

²⁸ “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

²⁹ “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. ³⁰ Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn

In my continuing efforts to make sense of the Jean Vanier revelations, my thoughts turn to this parable. It presents a powerful image of humanity (and everything that pertains to humanity) ... at all levels. Everything is strictly characterized by this metaphorical situation - weeds among the wheat. There is no perfectly pure entity, be it a person, a church, a group, an organization or practically anything under the sun. Every.single.thing is a mixture of "weeds and wheat." This teaching is echoed in practically every religious tradition: "yin and yang," "light and darkness," "samsara and nirvana" (and so forth) are frequently thought and taught to coexist; to mix and fuse; some traditions go so far as to teach that one cannot be without the other. Yes, what is really striking is that "the good wheat and the bad weeds" have to be allowed to coexist and to grow together because, as the householder wisely says in the parable, "while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them" (v. 29).

Becoming a Grown-Up Member of a Family and a Tradition

Growing up is not easy; it's frequently accompanied by lots of "growing pains" (as this kind of pain is very appropriately named). If you had the fortune of having had a happy childhood, one aspect of growing-up is discovering that daddy is not the superman or mommy is not the wonder woman you once thought them to be. At some point, those idealized images just fall apart. In many instances in the process of growing up, we realize just how human our idealized "heroes" in life are - they're deeply flawed. Sometimes, we shockingly discover that these heroes have very sinister and toxic sides to them. In this Vanier affair, the hallowed icon has now been defaced and tragically shattered, without any hope of being restored.

However, we should recall that becoming a grown-up means, among other things, acquiring the capability of dealing with the dark and nefarious sides of our family and tradition, particularly in the "revered" people who embody them. It is especially painful when a personified embodiment of the tradition is discovered to have done evil. Human weaknesses, isolated slips and falls may be more easily excused, but when the embodiment of the tradition's most sacred ideals is found to have been in a continual state of deception about and even betrayal of the very ideals he himself had taught, this is really irredeemable. How to make sense of this?

Again, weeds among the wheat. I must say though that in this case, "weeds" is too benign an image. It doesn't communicate the nefarious quality of these revelations. But the idea is there: evil and good ... coexisting, commingling, growing together, often hard to separate. This is very much part of the mystery of life, in front of which we can only bow down and acknowledge because we fail to truly grasp so much of it.

I also think that it's crucial to affirm another aspect of--what I'll call--the "weeds among the wheat" principle: Both good and evil are greater than any one person or thing. They transcend any individual or thing. Each and every one of us is part of the bigger structures of good and evil that envelop us. Each and every one of us has both good and evil within. Each and every one of us has both an imago Dei (image of God)-a Buddha nature, as well as its opposite, so that no one is unilaterally good or evil. Weeds among the wheat.
(Having said that, I will add though that I fully agree with Jamie Manson's points in her "No, Jean Vanier is not 'like all of us,'" reminding us that there is a particular evil to be found in JV's pattern of behavior)

L'Arche: What the "Wheat" has Become

When I look at the "wheat" and what it has become, I am profoundly grateful. L'Arche, according to its self-definition, serves adults with physical and intellectual disabilities and is rooted in values that recognize the dignity of each person, the importance of belonging in a community, and the creation of a more just society. It's an amazing community and organization. This is a reality that needs to be treasured and cherished, now more than ever! Where did this come from? What is Jean Vanier's part in the development of this magnificent "wheat"? I don't really know the right answers to those queries but I will just stammer out for now (and I may be wrong about this!) ... that if good was perceived in JV or if good was perceived to have come out of him, it's because, yes, he, like all deeply flawed human beings, was also able to tap into the wider matrix of good that thankfully envelops and contains all of us.

And yet we mourn the evil...

And yet, there is no condoning the sinister abuse of others that JV perpetrated over a long course of time. The problem of evil here just stumps all of us and we can only, once again, bow down ... acknowledge it ... and, for now, mourn.

... Hopefully, we can in time recover a little strength, enough for us to get up and move on ... for that is the grown-up thing to do.

L'Arche's Amazing Courage and Transparency

In closing, let me clearly say that I admire the leadership of l'Arche for taking the initiative to commission an independent investigation that led to the revelations of these wrenching and sordid sides of its founder.

I apologize that I'll have to say this hurtful thing about the Catholic hierarchy but I think it is fair: L'Arche is led by lay people, not church hierarchs ... and very thankfully so. Because this non-clergy leadership displayed firstly an admirable compassion for the victims, as well as courage, transparency, and accountability in the face of damning truths about its once-revered founder. Isn't this an amazing case of a lay-led (not clergy-led!) organization courageously striving to make itself accountable? It's an amazing breath of fresh air in leadership! For once an organization rooted in the Catholic tradition gets leadership right! (Of course that was hyperbole because many other Catholic leadership structures display amazing leadership!) But just imagine if clergymen were leading this organization, I'm sorry to say from the record that chances are, the process would have been very different ... (and I'll stop there)

Thank you, l'Arche, from the heart, and more, yes a lot more power to you!


My reports on the 2019 Toronto theological colloquium on the Catholic sexual abuse crisis can be found here . Another article with my biblical reflections on the sexual abuse crisis entitled "Remembering Jerusalem While Rome Burns" can be found here.

My Initial Thoughts on the Jean Vanier Revelations - the Unhealed Wound

Distressing Revelation

Late at night on Feb. 21, the Globe and Mail newspaper released a shocking story that in an internal investigation ordered by l'Arche itself,  Jean Vanier, its revered Canadian founder, has been found out to have himself abused at least six women over the course of a 35 year period.

Some Resources:
An excellent initial report by the Jesuit magazine America / The pdf version of the report released by l'Arche

This news is really distressing for me and for many others, as many of us at King's (King's College-Western University, London, Ontario) where I work have (close to) "revered" Jean Vanier as a contemporary saint. We even have a research centre at our university named after him dedicated to studying his valuable contributions to, among others, the valorization of those with various disabilities. It turns out, Vanier had a very dark and hidden shadow in him which was largely left unaddressed and unsolved and which wrought damage in his victims and many others.

I am sorry, first of all, for the women who had to endure this abuse from Vanier and I admire their courage for coming out to tell the terrible truth. I hope they find some measure of healing and closure.

The Unhealed Wound

At this point, I cannot help but think about what the late Catholic psychologist Eugene Kennedy (a former priest) argued for mainly in a book called The Unhealed Wound: The Church, the Priesthood, and the Question of Sexuality, a book I read many years ago which, I remember, made a deep impression on me.

In his review of the book, John Krejci, describes the book thus,

In the Unhealed Wound Eugene Kennedy, psychologist and married [former] priest, applies to the Church the mythological tales of the Western Knight, who, seeking the Holy Grail, slays the Eastern Knight, who symbolized nature, But in his victory the Western Knight is wounded and the wound will not heal until someone asks, "What is it that ails you?" and the wound is acknowledged. In other words, the Church cannot be whole or fully holy until it recognizes its wound, its imperfection.

Kennedy is therefore putting the spotlight on the fact that there is "an unhealed wound" in the collective psyche of  many Catholics, particularly, in those who are in its structural core, namely, members of the hierarchy, members of religious orders and (I would definitely include) spiritual leaders and teachers (even though they are lay people like Jean Vanier).

This unhealed wound refers to an unwholesome, better yet, a very SICK attitude to sexuality. Kennedy argued (convincingly for me) that historical and conventional Catholicism has driven an unhealthy wedge between grace and nature, practically equating "grace" positively with the state of chastity and celibacy on the one hand, and, on the other, "nature" as sexuality, but viewed in a very negative way and often demonized. Catholicism has never succeeded to integrate these two factors in a healthy, wholesome way, hence, the wound remains and continues to fester, affecting and victimizing so many people in the process.

It is this woeful lack of wholesome integration between spirituality, humanity and sexuality in the common Catholic psyche (especially of Catholic leaders [and Jean Vanier was one such leader in the l'Arche community and among his admirers]) that has resulted in many terrible consequences, such as the continuing scourge of sexual abuse done by some in positions of spiritual authority toward those who are under their authority and pastoral care. Of course, we have to add to that the self-deception and abuse of spiritual authority that are very common in religious/spiritual leaders. The pattern is seen ad nauseam in the many instances of sexual abuse that have plagued the Catholic Church in recent years. This is--I would venture--also clearly seen in what transpired and has been distressingly revealed in Jean Vanier and his spiritual mentor, the Dominican Fr. Thomas Philippe, who also sexually abused people under their authority and care.

[Recalling the Toronto Symposium on Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church] We had a noteworthy symposium in Toronto in 2019 about the Catholic sexual abuse crisis. My notes on that symposium are here.

Unhealed Wounds

Unhealed wounds, if not treated properly, go on to fester and eventually can lead to serious infection and even sepsis, a point when the whole organism begins to shut down in a fatal way. I think that this applies in many ways to institutional Roman Catholicism.

Something radical has to be done -- something tantamount to removing the "band aids" that cover the disgusting and festering wound particularly of the Catholic Church's leadership structure. Kennedy said years ago that healing will never come until someone asks the one who is wounded "What is it that ails you?" and truly acknowledges the wound. What is so distressing is that so many people have already asked and acknowledged this. The terrible effects of the wound have been demonstrated in case after case of sexual abuse ad nauseam, as we also see in this latest round of revelations about Jean Vanier and his mentor. The burning question for me and for many is ... what if the wounded person continues to refuse to be healed? What is there still to be done?

My Continued Appreciation for l'Arche

I would also like to say clearly that these revelations about Jean Vanier do not subtract in any way from my deep respect and appreciation for the many outstanding things that l'Arche (its members and the many people who support it-you know who you are!) is doing in the world, particularly, for people with various disabilities. I will continue to support them and I hope its various patrons continue to do so. Keep up the good work and more power to you, l'Arche!

My "further thoughts" on the Jean Vanier revelations can be found HERE