Are you a Kingdom or a Communion Catholic?

Upon arrival at the retreat we were given a copy of an article entitled, "Overcoming discord in the church[sic]," by Father Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., former Master of the Order of Preachers (National Catholic Reporter, 5 May 2006).

Radcliffe rightly points out that "we usually think of this polarization in terms of the dichotomy of left and right, progressive and conservative. But these categories are alien to Catholic thinking."

What, then, is Radcliffe's response? To toss off these categorical labels and replace them with new ones. This really solves nothing but merely gives a new name to the same problem.

In his own words: "I opted for the terms Kingdom Catholics and Communion Catholics." I know. The terms for which he opts are goofy at best. The dichotomy he proposes is, as I see it, quite false.

What does he mean by these two categories of believers? He explains:

By Kingdom Catholics, I mean those of us who have a deep sense of the church as the pilgrim people of God, on the way to the kingdom. The theologians who have been central for this tradition have been people like the Jesuit Karl Rahner, and the Dominicans Edward Schillebeeckx and Gustavo Gutiérrez. This tradition stresses openness to the world, finding the presence of the Holy Spirit working outside the church, freedom and the pursuit of justice.

By Communion Catholics I mean those who came, after the council, to feel the urgent need to rebuild the inner life of the church. They went with theologians like Hans von Balthasar and the then Joseph Ratzinger. Their theology often stressed Catholic identity, was wary of too hearty an embrace of modernity, and they stressed the cross.

We are indeed a pilgrim people journeying ever onward toward heaven, but we do so precisely through a sharing in the Cross of Jesus Christ. To separate the two as though they could function independently one from the other is not a Catholic option, nor is it for any Christian. The kingdom of heaven is not possible without the Cross. As Saint Paul steadfastly declared:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (I Corinthians 1:22-25).

By placing the dividing line at the time of the Second Vatican Council, Radcliffe wrongly represents the faith of the Church both before and after the Council. (Curiously enough, as one of those theologians "who came after the Council" is none other than Joseph Ratzinger who was present at the Council because he was already respected as a theologian in his own right.)

What Radcliffe calls "Kingdom Catholics" and "Communion Catholics" is really nothing other than what a Catholic ought to be! Until we stop dividing ourselves into various camps, the discord that Radcliffe attempts to heal will always be present.

There is a clear distinction between theological argument and inquiry and discord. Radcliffe seems to ignore the line. The Church is called, as St. Ignatius of Antioch so eloquently put it, to harmony and concord, all centered on Jesus Christ:

Hence, it is right you to concur, as you do, with the mind of the bishop. For your priests, who are worthy of the name and worthy of God, like the strings of a lyre, are in harmony with the bishop. Hence it is that in the harmony of your minds and hearts Jesus Christ is hymned (To the Ephesians 4).

I would propose for Radcliffe's consideration that delightful contemporary of the holy founder of his way of life, Saint Francis of Assisi. It was Francis' deep longing for heaven that led him embrace the Cross. I am sure saint Dominic was motivated by the same holy longing, those his life I do not know well.

Radcliffe does admit that "most of us will feel some attraction to both of these traditions, but will probably feel a primary identification with one or the other."

Even if this is true, how do we go about healing these sad divisions, you ask. "We will only heal the divisions is we stretch our imaginations to understand why the others think and feel as they do."

There is here already the "us versus them" mentality and, as is always the case, we right and they are wrong. Something does not seem quite right here to me...

"Before we can talk," he says, "we must sympathize, and feel how it is that their way of understanding the church [sic] offers them a home, a place in which to be at peace." Strage the the Church is not of herself a home, but only becomes a home based on my personal understanding of her mission...

What ever happened to sin as the root of division? What about the need for reconciliation? Maybe this would be a good place to begin seeking to heal the many sad divisions found among us, divisions that have no place amongst those who seek to follow Christ Jesus. Instead, Radcliffe offers offers the option of dialogu and conversation to heal the division. This is all well and good, but the reality of sin must still be recognized.

In an effort to further clarify what he means by the two terms, he suggests that

Kingdom Catholics were filled with joy by the [Second] Vatican Council, and felt themselves to be on the way to a deeply renewed and less clerical church [sic], which would be a sign of hope and liberation. But as the years went by, they often felt disappointed and betrayed. The church [sic] was not turning out to be the home they had hoped for. And Communion Catholics also felt betrayed. They endured the loss of beloved traditions, ways of celebrating the liturgy, a sense of a Catholic world (emphasis mine).

In the end, its eems it is more about the Church being fashioned in my own image of what it should be, an image often shaped more by politics and agendas than by faith and the hope of eternal salvation.

As a way to demonstrate what kind of dialogue he means, Radcliffe offers the example of the Liturgy:

The fundamental difference here is often between those who see the liturgy as something that is given, and those who believe that we are called upon to be creative in liturgy. This is the difference between those priests who begin the Eucharist by saying, “The Lord be with you,” and those who say, “Good morning. It’s wonderful to see you all here today.” There are those who believe that the rubrics must be followed carefully and without deviation. And there are those who believe that the liturgy is boring and mechanical unless it can be personalized. This is a bit of a caricature, but I am sure that you get the picture.

This tension between two ways of celebrating the liturgy is the cause of vast pain in the church. It rests on the opposition between the liturgy as given, received from our ancestors, not to be tinkered with, and the liturgy as a creative celebration, which is prepared for these people, at this time, a unique moment. The answer is, I suggest, to go deeper and find ways of transcending this dichotomy between what is given and what we creatively make.

The difficulty with this argumentation is, of course, what the Second Vatican Council had to say about the Liturgy:

Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

This would seem to discount the notion of the Liturgy "as a creative celebration."

Radcliffe concludes the article saying, "We cannot tolerate polarization any longer." If you truly believe this, then discard the useless and arrogant labels and do not create a new label. This will considerably contribute toward concord within the people of God.

Of course, very little of this discord probably would have arisen if people - both priests and laity - would have so much as bothered to read even a few snippets of the actual documents of the Council.

Much of the shifting paradigm in the Church today is a result, I firmly believe, of more and more Catholics readings the Council documents.