I’ve just had what might be called a surreal experience: I’ve been reading an exchange between two Roman Catholic theologians, both 80 years old, imagining a “Religion of the Future” that will not be any recognizable version of Roman Catholicism. Their dialog is recorded in a new book called Jesus and Buddha and is focused on the potential complementarity of Buddhism and a post-modern version of Christianity. The friends are Roger Haight, SJ, well known author of the 2000 award winning book Jesus Symbol of God, and Paul Knitter, author of many books, most recently, Without Buddha I could not be a Christian, Orbis, 2013.
Surreal as it might be that married, ex-priest and retired Catholic theology professor Paul Knitter has committed himself to Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism, it is well matched by his interlocutor: silenced theologian Roger Haight who, incredibly, is still a Jesuit priest in good standing. Haight’s attempts in this dialog to restate traditional Catholic doctrine in a post modern idiom mirrors the surreality of his status. He was silenced by the Vatican in 2004 because his book contained “statements contrary to Catholic doctrine.” Given the Papal resistance to doctrinal reform since Vatican II, it was inevitable. Both men, institutionally displaced in different ways by that resistance, are here grappling with issues that, in my opinion, should have been resolved a long time ago. This state of affairs is consistent with my belief that the Catholic Church will never change. That’s a pity. For in its current condition official Catholicism does not faithfully represent Jesus’ message, and I think that may explain why it is not capable of carrying on a coherent conversation with Buddhism. The authors seem to agree, because this dialog from the Christian side conspicuously omits all traditional Catholic articulations.
The conceptual careening of these two Roman Catholic professionals who hold membership in an elite corps of systematic and disciplined thinkers, is an indicator of the utter disarray of Catholic theology after a half-century of officialist resistance to Vatican II. The Council encouraged the Church to leave the 16th century and become a serious partner in interfaith dialog. That required theological exploration and innovation that was never allowed to happen. The result is, as I see it, that these two very old soldiers are just now entering doctrinal territory that should have been conquered and pacified two hundred and fifty years ago, when the American and French Revolutions broke the aristocratic rule of the ancien regime.
I believe that the Haight-Knitter dialog is being covertly diverted by a theocratic imperative embedded in Roman Catholic doctrine. This theocratic imperative has historically exploited the Jesus movement for its crowd-control potential and prevented it from generating a human community of free men and women. Catholic Christianity is not a faithful repository of Jesus’ vision. The “Jesus” represented by Roger Haight in this book does not exist anywhere, and certainly not in the Catholic Church. Moreover, I believe these two Catholic theologians are hampered by their institutional loyalty.
Institutional loyalty in the Roman Catholic Church has, since Trent, become more than a social virtue; obedience to the Church authorities is virtually a matter of latria — internal submission at a level that one would think belonged to “God” alone: worship. Roman Catholics believe their Church is divine and what it teaches are “truths” revealed by “God” himself. Both of these professional Roman Catholics, coming from their respective points of view, are in my opinion trying to find ways to outflank an obsolete Roman Catholic ideology without openly contradicting the magisterium. Knitter, I believe, avoids direct confrontation by claiming that Buddhism is praxis not dogma. Erstwhile “heresies,” disguised as prayerful exercises and mental training not statements about the nature of Sacred reality, should be of no interest to the inquisitors, while Haight I see as the consummate wordsmith, elegantly crafting new post-modern formulations of orthodox dogma fully confident that he has found a way to “save the words” of ancient formulae while becoming intelligible to the post-modern mind … or at least that it will fly below the radar of the thought police currently under new management.
The overblown role of the hierarchy in managing the belief structure of the Church is never itself the direct object of discussion, validating or invalidating the doctrinal complex of which it is an integral part. The way authority is exercised can’t be separated from the doctrinal underpinning that justifies it. Also, authority cannot be given absolute unquestioning obedience without conceding the doctrinal basis claimed for it, or at least allowing others assume it and thus appear to support a gross distortion of Jesus’ teaching .
No one considers stating the raw truth: that from the point of view of Jesus’ message the Roman Catholic doctrinal edifice and the authority structure it supports are disfigured beyond repair; they need to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. These Catholics, I believe, are using a Buddhist-Christian dialog to disguise what they are really doing: trying to find a replacement for a Roman Catholicism that has lost its credibility.
I humbly and respectfully challenge both these men, clearly my superiors in virtually any category you select, to look squarely at the real issue in Roman Catholicism — the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about — the fatal historical distortion of the message and mission of Jesus stemming from the transmutation of the role of the Christian community from proclamation by example to social control by juridical coercion. Over the course of two millennia the decision of Western authorities to use Christianity for political and social control has caused the erection of a doctrinal complex that both in terms of the alleged “facts” it adduces and the significance of those facts for people’s lives, stands in stark contrast to sacred reality as Jesus understood it and as he encouraged people to respond. That it is also unintelligible to Buddhists and post-modern westerners reared in the perspectives of modern science is hardly a surprise.
Theocracy is the intent of Roman Catholic Doctrine and the source of its distortion. Theocracy — “crowd-control” — has functioned from very early times to subvert the fundamentally liberationist dynamic of Jesus’ message. The Roman authorities took a religious vision based on love and freedom and converted it into an ideology driven by law, and obedience … and fear: they forced Jesus through a metamorphosis that made him the divine Pantocrator, the all-ruling judge of the living and the dead.
The 18th century political upheavals that finally overthrew Roman theocratic governance in the West never penetrated its ideological foundations. The Roman Catholic Church preserves those underpinnings in its doctrine, and its own authority structures are based on them: caste status as an ontological reality, political power as a “divine right” and obedience as a form of latria. The Church is the last bastion of anti-democratic aristocratic control welded in steel to “infallible” dogma, and the perennial vector from which its contagion — the divinization of fear, law and obedience, the living embodiment of the master-slave relationship — is always ready to spread. Latin American liberation theology represented the direct antithesis of this aristocratic intent, and one can understand why, despite its orthodox credentials, it was the object of venomous attack by the counter-conciliar forces in the 1980’s and ‘90’s. They said it was attempting to use Catholic dogmas “contrary to their purpose.”
The implications of this thesis are wider than Christian doctrine. Because of the iron link between doctrine and practice, authentic doctrinal reform will only occur if accompanied by social-moral-political reform. Two hundred and fifty years of the rhetoric of “democracy” have yet to persuade the vast populations of the modern world that they no longer need the protection or guidance of a superior elite — an upper class — nor fear its wrath. A “God” ordained Aristocracy is a myth that will not die. Populist fascism, based on racist subordination, is a version of it with which we are becoming increasingly familiar in the USA even as we speak.
2. “God” transcendent or immanent
The foundational doctrine of theocracy is a punitive “God.” Only a punitive “God” inspires fear. In order for “God” to be punitive he has to be a “person” who “wants” certain things from people. This personal “wanting” (despite contradicting the very definition of “God”) generates a corresponding obligation to obedience on the part of the individual human being who is terrified of the wrath that non-compliance may engender.
A punitive “God” also needs to be transcendent. By that I mean very specifically that “God” must transcend the natural order and not be identified with it. He must stand over against the material universe and humankind as a separate entity, or he cannot interact with it, command it, punish or reward from outside.
The seminal event that established the transcendence of “God” is creation ex nihilo. A personal “God,” without any pre-existing substance or force to determine the shape of creation except his choice and artistry, makes the world out of nothing and therefore stands above and apart from it and owns it lock, stock and barrel. The world makes no contribution to creation and has nothing to say about its direction. “God” controls and commands. We obey.
The opposite of transcendent is immanent. Immanence means that to one degree or another “God” is identified with the natural order and indistinguishable from it. Modern science has discovered that the story of a separate personal entity/agent creating the world out of nothing has no evidence to support it. In fact science has discovered that the cosmos and everything in it, from the smallest sub-atomic particles to macro-structures of immense size like galaxies, and complexity like human beings, has self-elaborated in a process called evolution over an unimaginably long period of time. Far from making no contribution to creation it is now known that matter’s energy to secure continued existence for itself is the exclusive force that has shaped everything that exists in our universe, including the living things whose autonomous pursuit of existence is now an intrinsic part of the evolutionary process.
Insofar, then, that one continues to insist that it is still “God” who is the ultimate ground and dynamism behind this energy and its elaborations, it must be said that “God” is not perceivable as a singular entity or separate agent of evolution and must be understood as indistinguishably identified with the material energy that is actually observed doing the creating. We are just now learning how profoundly immanent “God” is in the natural order; any creative energy he imparts to it is inseparable and indistinguishable from what it is observed doing. We know abstractly that “God” is “cause.” But how exactly “God” is distinct, if indeed his causation is distinct at all, is beyond our ken. Thomas is clear: God is not an entity and his causation is totally commensurate with secondary causes.
But please notice, an immanent “God” is also indistinguishable from yourself. The only commanding “God” could possibly do, if indeed “he” were ever to take the form of an entity/person who commands, would derive from primary causality providing the energy of esse (let’s call it LIFE) to your body. To hear the “will” of such a “God” means to listen to your self in the deepest sense of that word. That’s why John’s first letter suggests that those who are in touch with LIFE immediately recognize Jesus’ “divineness.” Similarly, once LIFE is embraced, it has a profound effect on one’s bodily behavior. The two, God and the conscious human organism, primary and secondary causes, become one again.
The depth of this immanence — this metaphysical and etiological identity — is not sufficiently described by calling it the “within” of things, as Teilhard does, because it evokes the image of a tenant in a garret room, active perhaps but necessarily separate and distinct in a way that is not faithful to the reality. Ramon Panikkar calls this imagery a pseudo-immanence that is really a disguised transcendence and he excoriates it mercilessly in his little book The Trinity in the Religious Experience of Man. Actually, Aquinas’ Aristotelian imagery in the SCG of “secondary causes” that are the sufficient and necessary cause of all things in a hierarchical relationship with “God” who is the invisible primary cause, the “Pure Act” that activates everything with “his” own esse, is my opinion, remarkably faithful to observed reality.
3. Science, evolution, person
I object to the way evolution is mentioned always ancillary to some other philosophical or theological guiding notions relating to creation; the evolution of material forms is not acknowledged as the sole, exclusive, sufficient and necessary etiology at play in creation. The lack of focus on matter’s self-elaboration is responsible for the failure to recognize the deep, intimate and pervasive nature of the immanence of “God” in the material universe. There is an identity here that the West has avoided like the plague. The esse we deploy by existing is not only “God’s” it is “God.”
The observable data about “God’s” way of creating do not come from scripture, they come from science. “God,” if we must insist on saying that it is “God” who creates (constantly confusing ourselves by evoking the anthropomorphic entity/agent imagery associated with the word), does so at the pace and with the exclusive agency of matter at whatever point of development it has reached on its own. “God’s” presence and action precisely as Creator is not distinguishable from the 13.7 billion year old material evolutionary process, and that includes the extinction of 99.9% of species that failed to adapt. Humanity and perhaps even all life on our fragile planet are similarly susceptible to that eventuality. Our traditional assessment of the central role of humankind in “God’s” relationship to creation, and therefore a putative guarantee of permanence for our species, is cast into grave doubt once we accept the determinative role of evolution in the creation process.
In this same regard, to say “God is personal but not a person,” as they propose, is unintelligible. There is no theodicy that justifies traditional micro-managing providence. Traditional providence implies a rational, interactively relating, living entity who communicates with, hears and responds to other persons. That’s what “person” means to human beings. I think it is incontestable that Haight means “personal” in exactly that sense:
In this framework Jesus reveals God to be personal, not a big human person in the sky, but in such a way that the absolute divine power that creates and grounds all being is personal, intelligent, knowing, understanding, willing, and desiring what is good for God’s creatures. This means that all beings, in themselves and in their specific relationships and actions, stand in relation to a ground of being that is personal. The universe is suffused with intelligence and affective attention. Individual beings have a value that is guaranteed by a creating power that personally cares about them. Persons are more than individuals; they are subjects called to respond to an all-encompassing personal attentiveness. (Chapter 4, Kindle 1250)
If “God” is a person in the sense described above, then he falls onto the horns of MacLeish’s dilemma: “If God is good he is not God, if God is God he is not good.” If “God” is personal, the Haitian earthquake and subsequent cholera epidemic were a disgrace. ¾ of the 200,000 people who died were children.
Micro-managing providence is a joke. There is no such providence. What “God” provides is the natural order. The psalms themselves are full of MacLeish’s lament. The only way out, it seems to me, is the identification of the primal “act” in the universe as a changeless will-to-esse where even “love” as we humans understand it is not yet operational: love is implicit in the will TO BE but must wait for its full explicitation on the secondary causes (conscious organisms) that will elaborate it as a derivative of their own pursuit of survival … the primal “act” (esse) is a living dynamism coming from a suffusive life-source which is not an entity and which does not distinguish among its truly universal effects to favor sentient and intelligent victims.
It is we, human beings, limited material organisms, who awaken in a world of such universal disinterested donation that even the microbes that kill us are sustained by “God” in the form of being that they have been able to achieve on their own. It is we, then, that interpret LIFE in our case to mean compassion and protection and relief of suffering. It is we who have invented “love” as part of our evolutionary process. And as we evolve we are learning that if we are to survive we have to love species other than ourselves. “Love” is our thing. “God” is love only because he sustains us too.
“God” is fundamentally immanent. It is as immanent that “God” is transcendent, i.e., he cannot be identified with any particular entity, because “he” is the living energy that transcends them all. “God” is also transcendent because the spectacular elaborations achieved by evolution have, each and every one of them, transcended exponentially the base from which they emerged, belying the age old dictum; ex nihilo nihil fit. ESSE supports secondary causes that draw from an unfathomable well of creativity what is absolutely new, ex nihilo: life from non-life, human intelligence from animal consciousness, and sustains all this newness with esse — “him”self.
An immanent “God” is our very own LIFE. This kind of “God” cannot punish because he has no “will” that is different from what we are and most deeply want for ourselves. If he cannot punish, he cannot be harnessed to social control no matter how benevolently it is conceived. Thugs have known that forever. The only “God” they ever feared was the autonomy of men. “God” impacts human politics only through secondary causes, just as he has nothing to say about when and where the tectonic plates of the earth’s crust are going to move in response to pressures from the circulating magma. Theocracy and the “facts” adduced to justify It — like reward and punishment — are a fraud, a lie, preying on our fears to trick us into surrendering our autonomy to those who claim to rule in “God’s” name. There is no one to punish us … and we have already received the greatest reward possible: the privilege to be made of living matter and eternally part of this LIFE-driven evolving cosmos.
Can we ever forgive such a “God” for not being the protective parent we think we need and want “him” to be? Can we love “him” for the anguished autonomy he sustains in us and this fragile material organism that we have evolved? Indeed, to my mind, that is the only authentic “religious” question … and the final answer to the Grand Inquisitor.