Hans Kung: 'The Vatican thirst for power divides Christianity and damages Catholicism'

[RL: brilliant analysis of the recent moves by Benedict XVI to amalgamate anglicans from 'silenced' catholic theologian Hans Kung]



The astonishing efforts to lure away Anglican priests show that Pope Benedict is set on restoring the Roman imperium


After Pope Benedict XVI's offences against the Jews and the Muslims, Protestants and reform-oriented Catholics, it is now the turn of the Anglican communion, which encompasses some 77 million members and is the third largest Christian confession after the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. Having brought back the extreme anti-reformist faction of the Pius X fraternity into the fold, Pope Benedict now hopes to fill up the dwindling ranks of the Catholic church with Anglicans sympathetic to Rome. Their conversion to the Catholic church is supposed to be made easier: Anglican priests and bishops shall be allowed to retain their standing, even when married. Traditionalists of the churches, unite! Under the cupola of St Peter's! The Fisher of Men is angling in waters of the extreme religious right.


This Roman action is a dramatic change of course: steering away from the well-proven ecumenical strategy of eye-level dialogue and honest understanding; steering towards an un-ecumenical luring away of Anglican priests, even dispensing with medieval celibacy law to enable them to come back to Rome under the lordship of the pope. Clearly, the well-meaning Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was no match for cunning Vatican diplomacy. In his cosying up with the Vatican, he evidently did not recognise the consequences. Otherwise he would not have put his signature to the downplaying communique of the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. Can it be that those caught in the Roman dragnet do not see that they will never be more than second-class priests in the Roman church, that other Catholics are not meant to take part in their liturgical celebrations?


Ironically, this communique impudently invokes the truly ecumenical documents of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission, which were worked out in laborious negotiations between the Roman Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Anglican Lambeth conference: documents on the Eucharist (1971), on church office and ordination (1973), and on authority in the church (1976/81). People in the know, however, recognise that these three documents, subscribed to by both sides at that time, aimed not at recruitment, but rather at reconciliation. These documents of honest reconciliation provide the basis for a recognition of Anglican orders, which Pope Leo XIII, back in 1896, with anything but convincing arguments, had declared invalid. But from the validity of Anglican orders follows the validity of Anglican celebrations of the Eucharist. And so mutual Eucharistic hospitality would be possible; in fact, intercommunion. A slow process of growing together of Catholics and Anglicans would have been the consequence.


However, the Vatican Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith quickly made sure that these documents of reconciliation disappeared in the dungeons of the Vatican. That's called "shelving". At the time, a confidential press release out of the Vatican cited "too much Küng theology" in them – in other words, a theological basis for a rapprochement between the churches of Rome and Canterbury.


As I wrote in 1967, "a resumption of ecclesial community between the Catholic church and the Anglican church" would be possible, when "the Church of England, on the one side, shall be given the guarantee that its current autochthonous and autonomous church order under the Primate of Canterbury will be preserved fully" and when, "on the other side, the Church of England shall recognise the existence of a pastoral primacy of Petrine ministry as the supreme authority for mediation and arbitration between the churches." "In this way," I expressed my hopes then, "out of the Roman imperium might emerge a Catholic commonwealth."


But Pope Benedict is set upon restoring the Roman imperium. He makes no concessions to the Anglican communion. On the contrary, he wants to preserve the medieval, centralistic Roman system for all ages – even if this makes impossible the reconciliation of the Christian churches in fundamental questions. Evidently, the papal primacy – which Pope Paul VI admitted was the greatest stumbling block to the unity of the churches – does not function as the "rock of unity". The old-fashioned call for a "return to Rome" raises its ugly head again, this time through the conversion particularly of the priests, if possible, en masse. In Rome, one speaks of a half-million Anglicans and 20 to 30 bishops. And what about the remaining 76 million? This is a strategy whose failure has been demonstrated in past centuries and which, at best, might lead to the founding of a "uniate" Anglican "mini-church" in the form of a personal prelature, not a territorial diocese. But what are the consequences of this strategy already today?


First, a further weakening of the Anglican church. In the Vatican, opponents of ecumenism rejoice over the conservative influx. In the Anglican church, liberals rejoice over the departure of the catholicising troublemakers. For the Anglican church, this split means further corrosion. It is already suffering from the consequences of the heedless and unnecessary election of an avowed gay priest as bishop in the US, an event that split his own diocese and the whole Anglican communion. This friction has been enhanced by the ambivalent attitude of the church's leadership with respect to homosexual partnerships. Many Anglicans would accept a civil registration of such couples with wide-ranging legal consequences, for instance in inheritance law, and would even accept an ecclesiastical blessing for them, but they would not accept a "marriage" in the traditional sense reserved for partnerships between a man and a woman, nor would they accept a right to adoption for such couples.


Second, the widespread disturbance of the Anglican faithful. The departure of Anglican priests and their re-ordination in the Catholic church raises grave questions for many Anglicans: are Anglican priests validly ordained? Should the faithful together with their pastor convert to the Catholic church?


Third, the irritation of the Catholic clergy and laity. Discontent over the ongoing resistance to reform is spreading to even the most faithful members of the Catholic church. Since the Second Vatican Council in the 60s, many episcopal conferences, pastors and believers have been calling for the abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests, a prohibition which, in the last few decades, has deprived almost half of our parishes of their own pastor. Time and again, the reformers have run into Ratzinger's stubborn, uncomprehending intransigence. And now these Catholic priests are expected to tolerate married, convert priests alongside themselves. When they want themselves to marry, should they first turn Anglican, and then return to the church?


Just as we have seen over many centuries – in the east-west schism of the 11th century, in the 16th century Reformation and in the First Vatican Council of the 19th century – the Roman thirst for power divides Christianity and damages its own church. It is a tragedy.



(from The Guardian, 27/10/2009)

Does Christianity in the West serve as 'fetishist disavowal'?

Recent research has revealed the role of cynicism in reinforcing dominant ideologies, especially in regard to capitalist modes of production. (Zizek, Spicer and Fleming 2003). Zizek has linked this cynicism to fetishism as the 'fetishist disavowal' or the process where one realizes that he or she should not believe in a given fantasy yet nonetheless continues to do so.

Capitalism’s use of social fetishes helps in part to explain this phenomena. Even when one feels dissatisfied at his or her job and realizes its absurdity, and even its ultimate contingent nature, he or she remains invested in this capitalist relationship to obtain fulfillment in other areas outside of capitalism such as family, social life, and/or religion. The objectified status of these 'social' relationships further entrenches their phantasmatic saliency as individuals see such desires not as social constructions but as natural conditions for human existence.

(source: critical management studies)

Christianity and Capitalism, or more specifically, Churches and the Stockmarket

I was informed about this in detail only yesterday night when I was chatting to a lady about my thesis topic. (Being a bookworm means also being slow to empirical data and events as they happen).

Given I now attend an Anglican church, and that I am researching the relationship between Christianity and neoliberal capitalism, I thought I should take more of an interest in these matters:

"THE Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney Anglican dioceses have all been burnt by playing the stockmarket.

The Sydney diocese will no longer borrow to invest in shares after losing $100 million, about half its investment, in the global financial crisis.

The Anglican Melbourne and Brisbane dioceses confirmed yesterday that they experienced investment losses as a result of the global financial crisis.

The Melbourne diocese's budget plunged into deficit, and investments valued at $2.5m in 2007 are now worth only $929,000.

A spokesman for the Salvation Army confirmed yesterday the church had also invested in the stockmarket, but said financial statements recording any losses were not finalised.

It is understood that the Catholic Church does not borrow to invest in the stockmarket.

After pulling in $30m at the height of the stockmarket boom in 2007, the Anglican Sydney diocese will have only $5m to distribute to services next year." (More HERE)

My mini project: On Lacan and reformational pedagogy

Desire, Drive and Fantasy in Christian Social Education: towards a ‘living theory’ of reformational pedagogy in view of Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytical theory

This is my boast…’: on being utterly unoriginal

To say that Jacques Lacan has been widely influential in academic circles worldwide is to invite the paradoxical accusations of understatement and banality. Lacan’s arcane writing style, not to mention his unorthodox methods of teaching and of carrying out psychoanalysis, have elicited emphatic rejections as well as adulatory references (Rabaté, 2003; see also Stavrakakis, 1999; Žižek; Laclau, 1990; J. Rose; Sokal) After Freud, Lacan is arguably the most important theoretician of psychoanalysis whose work has been endlessly discussed and debated. “His teachings and philosophy have spread worldwide, first to Latin countries like Italy, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, then to North America, before reaching Asian countries, especially China.” (Rabaté, 2003: xi) According to Homer (2005), over 50 per cent of the world’s analysts now employ Lacanian methods.

At the same time, Lacan’s influence has thoroughly permeated intellectual developments in the fields of cultural and social studies, literary theory, gender studies, postcolonial theory, ethics, philosophy, education, legal studies, international relations and Biblical Studies. Works that have since developed Lacanian theory such as Jacqueline Rose’s Sexuality in the Field of Vision (1986); Louis Althusser’s ‘Freud and Lacan’ (1984); Homi Bhabha’s Location of Culture (1994); Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s reconstruction of political theory beyond the premises of philosophical foundationalism (1990; Laclau, 1996, 2001; Mouffe, 2000); and Slavoj Žižek’s wide ranging corpus of writings from politics (Žižek, 1989; 1999; 2002; 2006) to Christianity (Žižek, 2000; 2003) to Alfred Hitchcock and Krzysztof Kiéslowski films (Žižek, 1992; 2001), all of which are now considered classics in their respective fields.

In many ways, this piece of research-cum-exploratory monograph arrives late to the Lacanian party, like the dopey kid who finds out about the party last and turns up when most of the cool kids have either gone home or are already drunk and regurgitating in the bushes next to the swimming pool. Yet the primary driver of this research is neither theoretical originality nor an entirely novel application of an old theory. Rather, my aim here is to show my readers how I can come to understand others and myself within the shared space that we occupy in a Christian educational institution using key concepts of Lacanian psychoanalysis. I also aim to share with fellow travelers, as honestly as possible, the troubles, tensions, contradictions and anxieties that arise from the prescribed roles and structured routines in such a social space. To this end I shall foreground autoethnographic narratives that are both descriptive reports of privately constructed self-accounts in their experienced form and recounting dialogically generated narratives in a story form (McIlveen, 2008). This approach to action research, known as ‘living theory’ pioneered by educationalist Jack Whitehead (1989, 1999, 2004, 2006), seeks to construct enquiries from professional practice of the kind: ‘how do I improve my practice?’ and correlatively ‘how do I live my values more fully in my practice?’

More broadly, this research is about a shared journey of learning to live ‘life together’ in community both intimately and radically (as intimated by Bonhoeffer), which augments continuous rediscovery and response to the “infinitely demanding” call to follow the crucified and risen Christ: “[embracing] the radicality of the human demand that faces us... Failure is inevitable for we can never hope to fulfill the radicality of [this] ethical demand.” (Critchley, 2007) I recognize that I am working to improve what I am doing because of my radical commitment to the ‘infinitely demanding’ call of ‘the Crucified God’ (Moltmann) which gives meaning and purpose to my life. In addition, the localization of my existence within spatio-temporal confines serves to show “that there have been and will be different ways of understanding and acting upon ourselves, [which] is itself an ethical work upon ourselves.” (N. Rose, 1999: 59)

To this end, my invocation of Lacanian theory must be understood not as theory as such, but as a form of a ‘living theory’ from which unique insight emerges. A ‘living theory’, according to Whitehead (2008: 14), necessitates a methodology that highlights “explanations that individuals produce for their educational influences in learning. They are grounded in the relational dynamics of everyday life and explain the receptively responsive educational influences of individuals in their own lives. They are unique.” In this way, I believe I am making a contribution to an emerging epistemology of educational knowledge by foregrounding my ontology of ‘being-there’ (or Dasein, to use a term from Heidegger) and my values driven by a theology of hope that fuses the horizons of Christian praxis with the explanatory devices of Lacanian theory in order that the future may be better. This also contributes to a politics of education that is committed to phronesis and praxis of ‘the true and the good’ as defined by the community of which I am a part (MacIntyre, 1981) - a reformational education institution.

Zizek: It’s the Political Economy, Stupid!

Zizek contra the 'weak' left and social reform:

"In the good old days of Really-Existing Socialism, a joke was popular among dissidents, used to illustrate the futility of their protests. In the 15th century Russia occupied by Mongols, a farmer and his wife walk along a dusty country road; a Mongol warrior on a horse stops at their side and tells the farmer that he will now rape his wife; he then adds: 'But since there is a lot of dust on the ground, you should hold my testicles while I’m raping your wife, so that they will not get dirty!' After the Mongol finishes his job and rides away, the farmer starts to laugh and jump with joy; the surprised wife asks him: 'how can you be jumping with joy when I was just brutally raped in your presence?' The farmer answers: 'But I got him! His balls are full of dust!' This sad joke tells of the predicament of dissidents: they thought they are dealing serious blows to the party nomenklatura, but all they were doing was getting a little bit of dust on the nomenklatura’s testicles, while the nomenklatura went on raping the people… Is today’s critical Left not in a similar position? Our task is to discover how to make a step further – our thesis 11 should be: in our societies, critical Leftists have hitherto only dirtied with dust the balls of those in power, the point is to cut them off ." (from HERE)

What is Liberation Theology (actually)? Part II

"Poverty is an act of love and liberation. It has a redemptive value. If the ultimate cause of human exploitation and alienation is selfishness, the deepest reason for voluntary poverty is love of neighbor. Christian poverty has meaning only as a commitment of solidarity with the poor, with those who suffer misery and injustice... It is not a question of idealizing poverty, but rather of taking it on as it is-an evil-to protest against it and to struggle to abolish it... Because of this solidarity- which manifest itself in specific action, a style of life, a break with one’s social class- one can also help the poor and exploitated to become aware of their exploitation and seek liberation from it. Christian poverty, and expression of love, is solidarity with the poor and is a protest against poverty. This is the concrete, contemporary meaning of the witness of poverty. It is a poverty lived not for its own sake, but rather as an authentic imitation of Christ; it is a poverty which means taking on the sinful human condition to liberate humankind from sin and all its consequences."

from A Theology of Liberation by Gustavo Gutiérrez

Why I am a 'Girardian'

"What I say is that human societies are very different from what specialists call 'animal society' because the former have religion. In archaic society religion and culture are absolutely one, even when they don’t seem to be. Religion, therefore, is a way that human beings learn, without realizing it, how to deal with violence in their midst. Here, sacrifice comes in as the killing of substitute victims. This phenomenon as a scientific entity should be explained in purely anthropological terms. It takes no religious conviction to be understood. It is a complete revolution in the way that even people unfavorable to religion understand archaic religion; to show that they are absolutely indispensable to the survival of man is a very important thing.In a way, Christianity is the end of archaic religions because it reveals that the victim is innocent.

When you understand Christianity correctly in its closeness and distance from archaic religion it is the same structure, the scapegoat phenomenon, that Jesus is victim of. Yet the text is intended to destroy your belief in scapegoat phenomenon instead of using it in order to have sacrifices. The relationship is very central and rational with all archaic religions in the past that may go back tens of thousands of years. This is very important."

~

from 'An Interview with René Girard', First Things, 6 Nov 2008

On the theory of 'Penal Substition Atonement'

This issue has bugged me as a Christian for so long, I'm glad intelligent Christians out there are writing about it. As a reader of Karl Barth, Jurgen Moltmann, Rene Girard, John Yoder and an advocate of various liberation theologies, I must say I consented both intellectually and affectively.

I can't say very much that would add to Kim Fabrcius' excellent exposition on the kerfuffle surrounding Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) posted on Ben Myer's Faith and Theology blog... except to say that as a big fan of Stan Hauerwas (quoted below to satisfy my vulgarity), I particularly enjoyed the last line of his first proposition. Also check out the excellent volume Stricken by God?: Nonviolent Indentification and the Victory of Christ and William T. Cavanaugh's Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ.

Putting it in a way only a Texan can:

“If you need a theory to worship Christ, worship your f---ing theory!” -Stanley Hauerwas

(KF's 'Ten Propositions on PSA' is also cross-posted on my personal blog)

What is Liberation Theology (actually)? Part I

Liberation theology emerged as a result of a systematic, disciplined reflection on Christian faith and its implications. The theologians who formulated liberation theology usually do not teach in universities and seminaries, they are a small group of Catholic or Protestant clergy and have direct contact with the grass-roots groups as advisors to priests, sisters or pastors. Since they spend at least some time working directly with the poor themselves, the questions they deal with arise out of their direct contact with the poor. Liberation theology interprets the Bible and the key Christian doctrines through the experiences of the poor. It also helps the poor to interpret their own faith in a new way. It deals with Jesus's life and message. The poor learn to read the Scripture in a way that affirms their dignity and self worth and their right to struggle together for a more decent life. The poverty of people is largely a product of the way society is organized therefore liberation theology is a "critique of economic structures". Phillip Berryman described the liberation theology in the following terms:

"Liberation theology is:

1. An interpretation of Christian faith out of the suffering, struggle, and hope of the poor;

2. A critique of society and the ideologies sustaining it;

3. A critique of the activity of the church and of Christians from the angle of the poor".

Source: Marian Hillar, 'LIBERATION THEOLOGY: RELIGIOUS RESPONSE TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS. A SURVEY' in Humanism and Social Issues. Anthology of Essays. M. Hillar and H.R. Leuchtag, eds., American Humanist Association, Houston, 1993, pp. 35-52

Slavoj Zizek on 'The Monstrosity of Christ'

'Slavoj Zizek discusses his new book, The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic?, and explains how the Christian concept of the "toxic neighbor" impacts political, economic, sexual, and cultural thought.' (h/t Mariborchan)

The revolution wasn't televised: James KA Smith on (involuntary) redistribution in the Church

Jamie Smith has just written an insightful piece on normative redistribution within the ecclesial community. This has caused a little bit of a stir, to which he has responded with a follow-up.

A good antidote to prevalent liberal notions of individual freedom within Church communities.

Just Charity

By James K.A. Smith

Some very important things can be lost in translation. Paul Rhoda’s recent commentary on Christian “charity” is a clear reminder of this. Having filtered the notion of “charity” through the libertarianism of Lord Acton (with a little help, I suspect, from his ideological heirs at the Acton Institute), Rhoda ends up with a very strange version of the Bible. Let’s call it the PRV, the Paul Rhoda Version.

If his commentary is any indicator, the PRV is a peculiar book. It’s not even really a translation; it’s an anthology—a Reader’s Digest compression with some heavy edits and omissions. The result is a different book.

Let’s consider just one of his claims: according to Rhoda, “Christian compassion is voluntary.” But such language of “voluntariness” is a modern invention. Our notion of something being “voluntary” implies that it is optional and un-coerced. In fact, we might even deserve some praise for doing what’s only “voluntary,” as if this was going above and beyond the call of duty.But did the early church see compassion and charity as “voluntary?” Or, to take up Rhoda’s specific case, did the early church see “income redistribution” as “voluntary?”

The short and easy answer is, “No.” We can note at least three reasons.First, such a conception of “voluntary” charity assumes a notion of freedom and autonomy that would have been utterly foreign to the Hebrews and to first-century Christians. According to the biblical picture, to be “free” is not to be autonomous or un-coerced. We are free when we are empowered to do the good. The strangeness of the biblical picture is that true freedom comes in subjection to the risen Lord. It is slaves of Christ who are truly free.Second, the biblical narrative makes no dichotomy between love and justice. The biblical word sometimes translated as “charity”—the Greek word agape—does not refer to something that is optional for Christians. If it were, how could it be commanded throughout the New Testament?

Finally, the PRV seems to just leave out those cases that contradict Rhoda’s claims. For instance, Ananias and Sapphira seemed to have worked with something like Rhoda’s conception of “charity.” According to Acts 5, they were generous and charitable. Having sold a piece of property, they came to the apostles and made a big show of their charitable “donation.” What was the result? Peter renounced the couple’s selfishness! They were holding back. In fact, they both immediately died under judgment (Acts 5:1-11). Is this any way to treat charitable donors? What was the problem?

Well, they must have been reading the PRV. They mistakenly assumed that the redistribution of their income was a “voluntary” matter. But the early church had a clear and established practice of compulsory property redistribution. They sold what they had, pooled their resources, and had all things in common (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-37). The church was living out an alternative economy—one compelled by gratitude and constrained by love. This wasn’t optional or voluntary, but was the reflection of a people serving a gift-giving King.

Towards a Anarcho-Liberation Theology

"A workable form of anarchism must go beyond the selfishness of Individualism thus avoiding western pietistic soteriology (be holy, be saved from sin) and rejecting nihilism (destructive and
unaccountable). However, it must not fall into the impersonal restrictions of Collectivism that would oppress the individual and favour vocal conservatism. A useful model of anarchism follows that utilitarian ethics are inappropriate to this model. It must be as practical in its approach to property as Mutualist anarchism is and as committed to the rejection of the free-market as is Communism. It must also reject the violent anti-intellectualism of anarcho-syndicalism, while celebrating the non-literate societies as empowered regardless of formal education. None of the atheistic forms of anarchism are entirely satisfactory because they leave a vacuum of power that is certain to be filled by a human, group, or interpretable contract (the judiciary).

Anarchism appears far better at assessing what is unjust about society than devising a realistic theory of social justice. Therefore a sixth school of thought is required, one which includes both the supernatural and the natural Powers in an integrated worldview. If there is a future ideal for anarchists it is of a society that has gone from being structured and reified, to organic and free to constantly evolve. Theological anarchism is the consistent return to empiricism, especially of the oppressed, as the foundation for reading and retelling the text.

This model would envisage a society in which rules, the ‘Law’, are replaced by covenants of action and consequence. It is no less utopian and unrealistic than the gospel theme of the ‘Kingdom of God’. Christian theology, in the western and liberationist traditions, is fully conversant with the impractical and improbable vision of society under God’s just reign. Christian anarchism addresses the contradiction inherent in anarchic praxis and illuminates Christian Liberationism. It is a form of anarchism that does not allow for the oppression of humans or their exaltation above one another: “there is but one Lord” (1 Cor. 8:6). Such a proposition shifts away from the theological justifications of any form of nationalism, patriotism, or sense of belonging beyond that of those with whom the Christian has an actual relationship."

'Christianity and Anarchism: A Primer' by K. Hebden