A generation ago, mainstream Christianity was widely dismissed as démodé. This verdict itself looks old-fashioned today. Whether you view recent developments with relief or unease, it is clear that the Catholic Church, in particular, remains remarkably robust. There are now almost as many Catholics as citizens of China. Secularists might be surprised to learn that the Church is the largest single supplier of health care and education on the planet, the principal glue of civil society in Africa, the strongest bulwark of opposition to the caste system in India, and a leading player in global campaigns for sustainable living. It provides almost the only charitable presence in Chechnya, and other blackspots often forgotten by the rest of the world. Yet these marks of health contrast sharply with the often poor standard of the Church’s leadership. The anomaly is crystallized by the position of Catholic women. If access to education forms one of the most important strands in a girl’s advancement, then the Church gets a major part of the equation wholly right. At the same time, it makes a catastrophic mistake in continuing to teach that all artificial contraception is sinful. When the Pope spells out what he holds to be a corollary of this teaching ”“ that the provision of condoms makes the spread of HIV more likely ”“ then wrong-headedness shades into chronic irresponsibility.
Ian Linden begins his admirable new book with a Chinese proverb: when a tree falls it makes a big noise, when a forest grows nobody hears anything. Media interest in ecclesiastical affairs tends to focus on the falling trees reflected in sex scandals, “unholy rows” and popes who demonstrate their fallibility. Global Catholicism does not evade these topics, but the book’s starting point lies a long way from the marble halls of the Vatican and its sheltered inhabitants. The main task Linden sets himself is to chart how a Eurocentric body which had largely spread in the wake of empire has evolved over the past half-century into the world’s most diverse and far-flung organization.
This extensive review whets my appetite to read the book. Ian Linden’s 256 page “Global Catholicism” appears to be a critical survey of Roman Catholic history since Vatican II, with an emphasis on how it has grown into an ever more truly global church. In that sense, it may perhaps be compared with “A History of Global Anglicanism,” a thicker and more academic survey of how Anglicanism has likewise evolved into a global communion that was published a couple years ago by Cambridge University Press. Or perhaps it invites comparison with Philip Jenkin’s best=selling “The Next Christendom,” already in its second, expanded edition. That marvelous work remains the gold standard for tracing the profoundly important transition of Christianity from being based primarily in the rich global north to the economically poor but spiritually vibrant global south. That quiet revolution is indeed as easy to overlook in some ways as the sound of a forest growing (as opposed to the noise of a tree falling, to use Linden’s striking analogy).
It looks like Linden’s “Global Catholicism” would be a stimulating, informative book. This review focuses especially on his critique of the papacies of John Paul II (the Great) and Benedict XVI. Ironically perhaps, it appears that I (as an rthodox Anglican) would give them both significantly higher marks than Linden seems to do as a moderately liberal Catholic (judging from this review). I know that I would gladly trade the Archbishop of Rome for the Archbishop of Canterbury any day. Both Joseph Ratzinger and Rowan Williams are brilliant academic theologians who have been thrust into an uncomfortable position at the top of their respective ecclesiastical hierarchies, but Ratzinger has done a much better job of adapting himself to the demands of his new role as chief pastor to millions of Christians around the world.
But regardless of who is the human figurehead at the top, both Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are now truly worldwide communions that are undergoing a massive and radical transformation that is beyond the control of any human leader. Bt I’d still prefer to have a decisive leader like Ratzinger at the helm of the ship than an indecisive waffler like Williams, as these two giant ships try to navigate those treacherous waters with conflicting cross currents.
David Handy+
As a Roman Catholic, I am amused. The vibrancy of the RCC is in the conservative wing. The liberal parishes are fading; the conservative parishes are growing in spite of a noticable lack of support on the part of a number of bishops and priests. Does this sound familiar?
There are a lot of Catholics who read the “Stand Firm” collection of blogs, because the Anglican Communion is the “canary”. (No, we are not here to try to persuade you to enter the RCC; we are here to sympathize but also to learn how to resist the incremental changes that would attempt to destroy the church.) Our advantage is the Magisterium and particularly the Catechism. The Pope is the lynchpin in the Magisterium, and the Holy Father is always the target. If the Pope can be undermined, then the effectiveness of our teaching arm can be undermined. To a great extent, it has been in the United States. The attack on orthodox Catholic teaching has been most effective from elements within the Church, but certainly the undermining from external sources has had an effect as well. Read this article again, and see if you still think that the reviewer is truly moderate.
For any who didn’t understand the reference to the Anglican Communion being [blockquote] the “canary†[/blockquote] in comment [b]2.[/b] by [b]Observer from RCC[/b], I believe it is meant to invoke the metaphorical “canary in the mine.” My experience, as a new Catholic, [i]en route[/i] to reception by her, essentially conforms to that of [b]Observer from RCC[/b].
Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer
Now that I have also scanned the review, having also read Shortt’s brief biography of Benedict XVI in recent months, I would note that I am compelled by the necessity for honesty to opine that both of Shortt’s writings with which I am familiar display substantial evidence of a very consistent [i]animus[/i] against the leadership of the Catholic Church, with the possible exception of her most [i]progressive[/i] leaders.
Any reader who considers Shortt a moderate, is rather obviously linguistically challenged, at least in English.
Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer
It was rather jarring to see Ratzinger described as a “chameleon”.
Certainly his thinking and intellectual expressions have evolved over
the decades, but calling him a chameleon is a bit of a stretch.
Hi, Keith. Yes, that was exactly the analogy I was making.
By the way, a year ago, I attended a traditional Dominican Mass at your parish, and the church was jammed with the most amazing cross-section of people in our region. It was so full, that a large number of people stood outside during the entire Mass to participate as much as possible. Many others were discouraged by the size of the crowd and left. (We expected this and got there almost two hours early. The church was filled completely an hour before the Mass began.)
I am not suggesting that an orthodox understanding of Christian theology is necessarily tied to a desire to celebrate an older form of the Mass, but clearly there is a hunger for the majesty and the mystery of God that has been largely unmet.
I don’t suppose the parts of Catholic practice he approves could be connected to the parts he doesn’t.
Anyway, who says what is right and what is wrong?
[b]6. interested observer[/b],
I fully agree with your observation about the “hunger for the majesty and mystery of God.”
Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer
____________________
P.S. [b][u]Off-Topic[/u]:[/b] My wife and I thought we had found much of that when we moved from Renton to Bothell in early 2005 when we discovered the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Kenmore, an exceptionally Anglo-catholic parish, especially for this region. Particularly because we felt called there by the Holy Spirit, individually and unbeknownst to each other (until we began to “compare notes”). But for me it turned out to be the stepping stone to becoming Catholic by making me realize just how Catholic I was spiritually and, to a large degree, intellectually. Looking back it seems somewhat ironic that the Rector at CotR had contacted the Rector at our prior parish in Kent who described me as “a very catholic man.” It turned out that the latter was more correct than perhaps even he was aware.
[blockquote]But it is still little known outside academic circles that in 1992, the then Cardinal [Ratzinger] donated a large sum from his personal resources to finance a German translation of the Lotus Sutra. The sentiment behind this initiative was underlined when he told an interviewer that Hermann Hesse’s great Buddhist-inspired novella Siddhartha was one of his three most treasured books alongside the Bible and Augustine’s Confessions, and that there are as many paths to God as there are human beings.[/blockquote]
Anyone here know where this interview may be found?
if you want to know about Ratzinger, read him, not this claptrap.
One of the difficulties with this review is the way in which the reviewer has inserted himself. It is also difficult for me to tell what Ian Linden really wrote because of the heavy filter through which Shortt appears to have read the book.
Other red flags for me – the use of the word “fallibility” in the context of this article is just wrong. The description of the powers of the Pope as “absolute” is not just wrong but frankly laughable. Whoever is in the Chair of Peter does not have all that much power … any Catholic who would like something addressed knows this. What a Pope has is influence and a certain amount of control to protect the teachings of the church as well as the ability to make certain appointments and influence others. The control is mostly local through the bishops who can be “orthodox” or who can be not so “orthodox”.
There is a difference between being a hierarchy and an emperor or dictator. The RCC is hierarchical, but is way less controlled and way messier than people who are not active RCs understand. For a convert, the reality of how the Church operates was a big surprise.
I also would love to know the source of the information regarding the Lotus Sutra. Benedict XVI has written a lot and this does not reflect anything I have read . 1992 was only 17 years ago, and Ratzinger had already been nicknamed JPII’s “rottweiler” due to his defense of orthodoxy in the RCC.
I believe the reason that many Roman Catholics read sites like this is the knowledge that the RCC needs support from lsimilar minded people in other churches (such as the Anglican)) to halt the downward decadent spiral (“the dictatorship of relativism”) of what used to be called Christendom . Maybe the solution is for all like-minded believers in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to “come home” to Rome. But that is a large open question.
#8
I can certainly testify that my experience at a local anglo-catholic parish and reading on sites like these has encouraged me to come “home to Rome” as they say. My wife and I (God willing) will be swimming the Tiber this fall. I, too, realized the Catholicity of my belief, both logically and spiritually, and have to decided to let go of an Anglicanism which I now believe does not truly exist, if it ever did.
#25
As for the solution being for all believers to go Catholic, if their experience is anything like mine, when God gets a hold of them and his plan for them is to become Catholic, they will be unable to resist Him except through the hardening of their hearts. While fathers let their sons make choices with their free will, that love expressed is never without guidance, direction, discipline and other tools to guide the son in the right direction. Sometimes God makes us an offer we cannot refuse.
I hold each of you in dear affection as brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, and I pray for Catholics, as well as all those in the Anglican Communion, that we may be, together and individually, a light that never goes out. The biggest obstacle we face is not from our Christian brothers and sisters who understand doctrine a bit differently than we do, but from rampant secularism. Our success will not be based on political movements or political revivals, but upon the movement of God in our own individual lives, and a revival of the whole Church.