By Randall Smith
The pastoral constitution of the Second Vatican Council Gaudium et spes states that the Church has the duty to respond to “the perennial questions of men about the meaning of present life and of future life and about the mutual relationship of both,” in a “language intelligible to each generation.” It is also often heard that the Church should be “in dialogue” with the modern world. This is not the same as “accompanying” people, which presupposes that there is no disagreement. In dialogue, the parties may disagree in the hope of reaching a better mutual understanding.
So let us accept for the moment the idea that it is good for the Church to propose entering into a dialogue with this generation. But a dialogue with whom? And what language would be intelligible to them? “Modernity” is not a monolithic entity. The Church does not have merely one interlocutor, but a plethora of them, each with its own presuppositions and its own “language.” So the Church must learn to speak in multiple languages to distinct audiences. To be effective, the approach it must adopt will differ according to the group it is addressing.
Some of the Church’s interlocutors, for example, still accept the old Enlightenment dichotomy between reasonable “science” and irrational “faith.” The Church addresses this group by attempting to show the reasonableness of faith. These texts tend to be more densely “philosophical.”
When the Church tries to show that the postulates of faith are as reasonable as any philosophy, there will be “biblical Christians” who accuse the Church of subjecting Scripture to human reason and of creating a “non-biblical theology.” When the Church strives to show how its positions are well supported biblically, the Enlightenment group accuses it of believing in the authority of an outdated and archaic text. So the situation is even more complicated than having to learn to speak multiple languages. Speaking “intelligibly” to one group may alienate the others.
There are those who find the language of science and Enlightenment reason too restrictive. They prefer the language of passion and beauty. For them, the philosophical language the Church uses in its conversation with scientists is too “logical,” too “deductive,” too tied to philosophical categories. The Church, they say, needs to be more “pastoral,” by which they mean more “open,” more attentive to people’s emotions and their “lived experience.” That is fine, but it is not an approach that works well with everyone, especially with hard-science scientists and serious philosophers for whom such “emotional appeals” seem like manipulation of the ignorant.
Some, like the Marxists, criticize the Church for being overly concerned with the things of Heaven and not enough with the injustices found on earth. They call faith “the opium of the masses” because the hope of Heaven, they believe, anesthetizes the faithful to the abuses they suffer now, especially from political and social injustices. This is obviously an unfair criticism, since the Church has never been timid in combating human injustice, and no group has done more to help the poor and the working classes than the Church. So the Church makes statements about political, social, and economic injustice.
When it does so, however, other groups will criticize it for being “too political,” insisting that the Church should be laser-focused on “getting people to Heaven.” And when the Church defends the poor and the weakest members of society, the followers of Friedrich Nietzsche accuse the Church of upholding a “slave morality,” undermining the strength, drive, and “manliness” of the culture.
The Church needs to dialogue with all these different groups. But the “language” and approach with which the Church addresses one group will not necessarily work with the others. For some, the Church’s documents rely too much on Scripture. For others, there is not enough Scripture. For some, there is not enough social concern. For others, there is too much. Some criticize the Church for being “anti-democratic” and “monarchical.” Others condemn it for being “socialist.” Some complain that there should be more condemnation of politicians. Others insist that there should be none.
Have you ever been in a two-person conversation when a third person, without understanding the story and context of the conversation, bursts in with a comment, criticism, or question that has little or nothing to do with the conversation you were having? Does it bother you? Have you ever wanted to say: “Hey, find out what conversation is going on before you burst in; you completely misunderstood what we were saying”?
If so, then perhaps you could say to yourself, when reading a Church document whose style and tone you do not like, something like this: “You know, maybe this document is not for me. Maybe I am not the one this document is in conversation with. Maybe it is intended for someone else, with different concerns.” There are other people in the world, after all, and not all of them are exactly like you. The Church tries to address everyone. But it cannot always address everyone in one and the same document, using the same language and the same approach.
There is also this. I learned as a student that when a wise teacher speaks, one listens. I had professors who were brilliant scholars and great lecturers, and others who were brilliant but not great lecturers. Some were excellent at Socratic questioning, but most were not. And there was one who muttered softly while seated at a desk, but if one listened carefully, one discovered not only that his knowledge was astonishing, but that he also had a hilariously dry sense of humor.
The point is that if one knows they have that gift of wisdom, one listens with all one’s mind and heart, whatever the manner in which they impart it. Otherwise, it is like someone serving you the best and most nourishing meal you have ever had, but you reject it because you do not like the style of the plate on which it is served.
That is not how one feeds oneself.
About the author
Randall Smith holds the J. Michael Miller Chair in Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His most recent book, Mapping the Itinerarium: A Companion to Bonaventure’s Journey of the Mind into God, has just been published by Emmaus Press. His articles can be found here: Randall Smith Portfolio.