A Philosophical Theology for Interreligious Dialogueby John N Veronica on Friday, 03 June 2011 at 22:22

Overview of a Pneumatological Philosophical Theology

by John Sobert Sylvest 2011©

the Spirit woos creation forth•

makes this way south & that way north•

invites each blade of grass to green!

horizons, boundaries, limits, origins•

perimeters, parameters, centers, margins•

we're given freedom in between!

thus truth & beauty & goodness grow•

thus lizards leap & roosters crow•

and dawns break with each new day!

good news is ours to be believed•

love freely given if received•

the Spirit in our heart will stay!

WHERE FAITH IS CONCERNED - there is something elegant inKung's rendering of faith as a justified fundamental trust inuncertain reality. What needs heavy nuance is the concept"justified" and just how broadly or narrowly it might bevariously conceived by different folks. I will defend a broadconception that includes both epistemic and prudentialcriteria but also relational norms. We must go beyondconventional rationality but we mustn't go without it; we mustbe transrational but not arational (re: our ultimate concerns- cf Tillich).

Where one begins on the faith journey vis a vis belonging,desiring, behaving & believing or community, cult(ivation),code & creed (and I believe we can begin in media res - in themiddle or anywhere) and to what degree one aspect isemphasized or de-emphasized, may not only be influenced byreligious & cultural differences but may quite often depend ondevelopmental and temperamental differences (such asordinarily lead to different spiritualities within the samefaith). And these aspects are not either-or dichotomies but

1

present, rather, in varying degrees.

We do not reason, feel or will our way into believing that the

pasture where the Shepherd leads us is green; that comes to us

as one of reality's givens? Neither do we reason, feel or will

our belief that life's path is safe; that realization, too,

comes only as pure gift? Ignatius prayed:

"Take, Lord,receive, all my liberty, my memory, understanding,my entire will. GIVE me only Your love and your grace" ...

So, faith, would be neither intellectual nor emotional norvolitional in origin, but holistically (existentially or withone's entire being) and integrally (drawing on each humanfaculty as would be proper to its role) would respond (insofaras it is performative) to our changing expectations as theyare dynamically (re)conditioned by reality's GIVENness?

It has the character of an existential-disjunctive, a livingas-if ... as if, despite reality's being awfully ambiguous forus and, apparently, terribly ambivalent toward us, love will,somehow and finally, orient, sanctify, empower, heal and saveus?

And all can "expect" that such efficacies will also berealized proleptically (in anticipation) to various degrees intheir lives? Further, it can be "expected" that a few willeven realize them to a remarkable degree (liberated/unitivelife)? All of reality seemingly participates in ever-increasing degrees of autonomy, freedom increasing up anontological hierarchy, up a phylogenetic ladder, up atransformative trajectory (variously conceived acrosstraditions)? This generates a paradoxical situation whereby,ironically, it may precisely be that a kenotic surrender ofthis very growth in freedom just might free us to embrace theintra-objective identity of all determinate reality (Creator-creature-creativity as One;absolute unitary being) without anyoverwhelming fear of loss of the values we may have alreadyrealized (and/or expect to realize) through theintersubjective intimacy we've come to enjoy (Creator-creature-Creator Spirit as the Many; unitive love)?

Sorting Truth Claims

2

Whether embedded in discursive analysis or mythopoeticnarrative -

Is this a claim that can be safely abstracted from its contextwithin the whole without doing violence to its integrity?rather than, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, being wrenched from itscontext in the whole and swollen to madness in its isolation?

And the general default stance would be that most truth claimsshould have some interreligious, intercultural significance ashuman beings are, for the most part, vis a vis the humancondition, similarly situated and, furthermore

Despite any pretense to the contrary, individual truth claimsare not going to be inextricably bound within or to systematicformulae because they are otherwise ordinarily going to berelated as individual strands of cable that collectivelyimpart strength and resilience one to the other (via theirintertwining) in a way that is much more informal. And thedistinction in play, here, is that between foundational andnonfoundational epistemologies, between deductive reasoningfrom a priori, apodictic propositions and a form of reasoningthat otherwise cycles through abductive and inductiveinferences in a cumulative case-like approach.

Further, one must consider the distinction betweenpropositional claims and nonpropositional posits.

As one moves within and across various communities of value-realizers, one must consider the nature of the concepts beingemployed vis a vis to what extent such concepts enjoytheoretic (negotiated), heuristic (still-in-negotiation),dogmatic (non-negotiated) or semiotic (non-negotiable) status.

One must further distinguish between articulations of anygiven theory of truth (correspondence & congruence) versus aproposal for a test of truth (coherence, consilience &consonance) next between nomological(descriptive/interpretive) & axiological(normative/evaluative) truth claims and then furtherdistinguish between prudential (moral/practical) norms andrelational norms (unitary/unitive), the latter which foster

3

realizations of absolute unitary being and/or intersubjectiveunitive intimacy, distinct realizations, to be sure, but bothfrom which solidarity and compassion seem to inevitably ensue?and which have profound existential import?

The relational norms (ceremonial, liturgical, ascetical &mystical) may, perhaps, be the most interesting when they leadto phenomenal experiences that do not so much lend themselvesto phenomenological descriptions (much lessMetaphysical/ontological hypotheses?) as they will otherwisebring about a practitioner's affective attunement with realityvis a vis how friendly and safe it is notwithstanding allappearances to the contrary (ridding folks of angst, perfectlove driving out all fear)?

These relational norms are discussed here in the context of apersonal God but certainly apply to degrees of intimacy inhuman interactions.

There is a "Taste and See" approach to such truth claims thatengages our participatory imaginations more than ourconceptual mapmaking?

This is not to say that empirical, logical, moral andpractical propositions are unimportant, only to realize that'marital propositions' are far more ' engaging' and meaning-giving, inviting what I like to call an existential-disjunctive: "I am going to live as if She loves me."

And when so many efficacies ensue from thus living AS IF ...perhaps truth will come flying in on the wings of beauty &goodness? as it is not merely informative but robustlyperformative, even transformative?

Our existential responses can be mapped along either the axisof co-creativity(formative and redemptive poles) or the axisof codependency (a/pathetic poles)based on their frequency andamplitude, revealing behavior to be existential or neurotic,life-giving and relationship-enhancing or their opposite.

THE PNEUMATOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

4

The pneumatological perspective engages an outlook that isincarnational, liturgical and sacramental. It embraces theessential Christological and pneumatological approaches ofAnglican, Orthodox, Roman and other catholic traditions whileemphasizing nonhierarchical vehicles in the practice of thefaith (not over against but as a complement to institutionalmodels of church). It enjoys an increasingly global P2P (peerto peer) interactivity among the world’s catholics.

It is described using an indefinite article (“a” not “the”)because normative philosophical and interpretive theologicalmethods are autonomous.

Furthermore, these methods employ falsifiable hypotheses andnot a priori positions.

A metaphor that mixes both manufacturing and natural processesmay be helpful in understanding this perspective.

References to a phenomenology, ontology or metaphysic may bereconceived in terms of raw materials. In this pneumatologicalarchitectonic (group of basic categories), these raw materialsare described as different types of relationships(intraobjective identity, intersubjective intimacy,intrasubjective integrity and interobjective indeterminacy).An inventory of these raw materials considers reality’sgivens, its basic furnishings.

What is called an axiology (think values) refers, then, to thesought-after products. These include end-products (intrinsicvalues), by-products (extrinsic values) and waste-products(disvalues and evil, which invite transformative processes).The end-products and by-products represent higher and lessergoods. The category of waste-products invites both theodicyhypotheses (why is there evil?) and questions of soteriology(what to do about evil?).

Any discussion of methodology, including epistemology, may bethought of as processes.

5

These represent the means by which we pursue our ends, thestrategies ordered toward our goals. They include ourdescriptive sciences, evaluative cultures, normativephilosophies and interpretive religions. They require prudentrisk management, both attenuation and amplification, orderedtoward the augmentation of value-realization. This prudentialjudgment employs an axis of co-creativity, where one polerepresents the high frequency-low amplitude approach of our

formative influences (think soft power) and the other – thelow frequency-high amplitude approach of our redemptiveInterventions (think hard power).

The aesthetic teleology (process ordered toward enhancedbeauty) of emergent reality does not forcefully coerce what itcan otherwise gently coax (or at least politely co-opt).

Prudence avoids the competing and insidious axis ofCodependency, where one pole represents the low frequency-lowamplitude approach of an apathetic disposition (such asdepression and isolationism) and the other – the highfrequency-high amplitude interventions of a pathetic over-involvement (such as codependency and militarism).

The products that result from the processing of life’s rawmaterials are ordered toward a consumer, a human being, who isa radically social animal. In this mixed metaphor, then, anytalk of an anthropology refers to the role of the consumer.

Different human value-realizations of the truth have beendescribed in various historical narratives that have beeninescapably eschatological (Spirit-oriented).

Beauty has been celebrated in cultural (mostly individualized)and social (mainly institutionalized) realities that are,respectively, theological (Spirit-sanctified) andecclesiological (Spirit-empowered). Goodness has been advancedand preserved by economic orders that are essentiallysacramental (Spirit-healed).

All of these value-realizations require a context of freedomadvanced by political realities that are soteriological(Spirit-saved).

6

None of this is to suggest that truth, beauty, goodness andfreedom are optimally (or equally) realized in everyhistorical, cultural, social, economic and political milieu,only to recognize that it has been the Spirit,Who has gentlycoaxed and, sometimes, more coercively cajoled, reality on ajourney that is unmistakably pneumatological (Spirit-inspired).

This is all to suggest that what we call the secular order isno reality from which the Spirit has been either partiallybracketed or fully abstracted but represents, rather,humankind’s pneumatological consensus to date, even if such anaccord is somewhat implicit and unconsciously competent andnot otherwise negotiated through explicitly consciousdialogical processes. Other semiotic (think meaning) realitiesare similarly negotiated (our theoretic concepts), non-negotiable (our semiotic concepts without which meaning,itself, would not be possible), still-in-negotiation(heuristic concepts or placeholders) or nonnegotiated(dogmatic concepts) across the human community of value-realizers writ large.

Thus we interpret the products of our trialectical axiology,the raw materials of our triadic phenomenology, the processesof our trialogical epistemology, the tripartite anthropologyof our consumer and the trinitarian theology of our Producer.

Distinctions & Neologisms

pansemioentheism

pneumatological consensus (the secular as)

nomological vs axiological truth claims

prudential vs relational norms

unitary vs unitive

7

descriptive sciences

evaluative cultures

normative philosophies

interpretive religions

theoretic concept

semiotic concept

heuristic concept

dogmatic concept

intraobjective identity (absolute unitary being)

intersubjective intimacy (intimate unitive communion)

intrasubjective integrity

interobjective indeterminacy

simple phenomenal experience

vague phenomenological concepts

robust ontological descriptions

risk management, both attenuation & amplification, ordered

toward the augmentation of value-realization

value-realizations as

implicit vs explicit

intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards

end-product vs by-product

axis of co-creativity (formative and redemptive poles)

8

axis of codependency (a/pathetic poles)

theoretical theological capitulation

practical pastoral accommodation

universal ethical norms of justice & ordinary virtue (morality

as end-product)

Christian unitive norms of love & extraordinary virtue

(morality as by-product)

A Pneumatological Consensus?

In a pluralistic country, might we perhaps discern how much,

on the whole, its people cooperate with the Spirit?

Might we observe how well its:

1) culture sanctifies

2) history orients

3) society empowers

4) economy heals &

5) politics save ----------- its people?

Might the secular there manifest, for better or worse, a"pneumatological consensus" with its implicit theology

(sanctifying), eschatology (orienting), ecclesiology(empowering), sacramentology (healing) & soteriology (saving)?

Of course, we are talking about proleptic (anticipatory)realizations of Kingdom values that are yet unfolding toward a

future fullness.

9

This would clearly differ from any overly dialectical

perspective that would essentially run counter to a robustly

incarnational and profusely pneumatological approach to all of

reality, even while recognizing significant differences in any

degree of cooperation with the Spirit. Of course, failures to

cooperate might result from either inabilities (due to poor

formation or even deformative influences) or refusals (known

to God alone).

Also, this might differ, somewhat, from any Niebuhrian realism

that would draw too sharp a distinction between the

eschatological and temporal significance of Gospel

imperatives? For example, nonviolence then but not now?

Or from any exegetical interpretations that would too sharply

distinguish between our personal vocations and political

statecraft? For example, coercion there but not here?

Or that would suggest so-called dispensational distinctions?

For example, signs & wonders then but not now, there but not

here)?

And we might introduce a distinction between the Gospel's

robustly unitive norms (how to live in loving intimacy with

God and others) and general revelation's merelymoral norms

(how to live in harmony with God, others, creation & self,

pursuing what's good and right, avoiding what's evil and

wrong), morality realized as a by-product of the former, an

end-product of the latter, necessary in any case.

10

Because of our radical human finitude and sinfulness

(personal, social & institutional), any sanctioned departures

from these unitive norms would represent, then, no theoretical

theological capitulations (eisegesis even) but, rather,

practical pastoral accommodations (for example, regarding any

use of coercive violence).

At any rate, these unitive norms - and not any essentially

moral norms, which are otherwise transparent to human reason

without the benefit of special revelation(s) - differentiate

the Gospel brand in the marketplace. Love is a suitable means

to the ends of justice but its unitive aims clearly exceed

those, even breaking open a new category.

The whole point of my exploration is that we might more

broadly conceive just when and where and in whom we mightencounter the Spirit!

The unitive vs moral norm distinction moreso differentiatesthe Old & New Testaments, as I see it. Keep in mind, though,that 'good people doing good things for good reasons'characterizes moral norms. Our unitive norms entail a strivingfor loving intimacy, relating as lovers. So, what I am sayingis that morality is not what separates the Gospel messagesfrom other messages b/c anyone can do morality, which istransparent to human reason without the benefit of specialrevelation, which is why we see good people doing good thingsfor good reasons everywhere. The Good News tells us that weare loved beyond imagining by a God,Who wants us to relate toHim as Daddy, or, if one prefers, as Betrothed.

To some extent, this unitive striving can be distinguishedfrom those practices of the East that are ordered towardgifting one with an experience of absolute unitary being,which I consider an intuition of intraobjective identity, our

11

great causal connectedness, reality's immense solidarity. Theunitive striving gifts us with an intersubjective,interpersonal intimacy. Both lead to compassion.

The thrust is that the Spirit just might be at work -

in every history, every culture, every society, every economy

and every political effort, albeit in varying degrees.

And the efficacies of the Spirit are being realized not justin the past or future but now, not just here and here butthere and there. And that the Spirit's invitation takes us --not without but -- way beyond mere moral & practical concernsto robustly relational concerns.

What is at stake in adopting an interpretive stance towardreality involves relational values & relationships, evaluativeposits of various types (truth, beauty, goodness,freedom/love), normative approaches (how to best avoid oracquire dis/values) and descriptive accounts (what is that?).

To some extent, we can roughly map these endeavors as science

(descriptive-truth), philosophy (normative-goodness) andculture (evaluative-beauty).

Religion is an interpretive stance that takes us meta- viacreed (truth), cult-ivation (beauty), code (goodness) andcommunity (relational).

The Spirit (based on Lukan Christology, too) orients,sanctifies, empowers, heals and saves us and these functionsare manifest in our churches, respectively, via eschatology,theology, ecclesiology, sacrament and soteriology,

mapping roughly over an otherwise, again respectively, secularhistory, culture, society, economy & body politic.

More commonly, we see the terms orthodoxy (truth), orthopathy(beauty), orthopraxy (goodness) and orthocommunio (community),as applied to our needs for believing, desiring, behaving andbelonging.

12

A New Testament emphasis would, in my view, for purposes offormative spirituality/development, while viewing all of theseaspects as integral, would accord a certain primacy tobelonging, which then forms our desires, which then elicit ourbehaviors which will nurture our interpretive stance orbeliefs. And these beliefs engage our participatoryimagination way more than our propositional cognition, beingway more performative than informative, much more aboutpractical living than theoretical speculation.

This does not correspond, however, to the Old Covenantmindset, which certainly values belonging, desiring, behavingand believing but seems to accord a primacy to believe thisand behave like that and then you can belong (and what's adesire?).

What we are doing in our dialogue is a theological task.We areunpacking our densely packed jargonistic prose. There isnothing magical about jargon but it is an eminently usefultool of any trade that consists, usually, of a shorthand thatis highly nuanced, hence saving time and space.When it isused, no problem, but it needs translating when being taken toa different audience. And that's all that was about. And thisis aside from any discussion of ecclesiology or models of

church, which, again, I don't see as mutually exclusive. I dosee a role for experts in descriptive, normative andtheological sciences but that doesn't drive my pneumatology orview of the Spirit at work in the world.We do want tocollaboratively pursue the most nearly perfect articulation oftruth in creeds/myths, the most nearly perfect celebrations ofbeauty in cult/liturgy, the most nearly perfect preservationof the good in code/law and the most nearly perfect enjoymentof fellowship in community and this will require our fosteringof Lonergan's conversions: intellectual, affective, moral,sociopolitical and religious, all toward the end of optimalvalue-realization.

In that, there are diverse ministries but one mission.

Pan-semio-entheism

I call my own approach a pan-semio-entheism precisely becauseI choose to prescind from any robustly metaphysical

13

descriptions (an ontology) to a more vague phenomenologicalperspective, which categorizes our experiences of God inrelational terms based on our intuitions, evaluations andperformative responses that ensue in the wake of theseexperiences. Those categories include 1) intraobjectiveidentity – regarding our vague intuitions of an absoluteunitary being 2) intersubjective intimacy – regarding ourunitive strivings 3) intrasubjective integrity – think ofLonergan’s conversions & formative spirituality and 4)interobjective indeterminacy – which hints at themethodological constraints and putative ontological occultingthat thwart natural theological inquiry, as some claim in-principle (which is too strong a position to defendphilosophically) and as I acknowledge (instead for allpractical purposes) at least, at this stage of humankind’ssojourn.

So, a suitably nuanced panentheism is not an ontology ormetaphysic or natural theology but, instead, a theology ofnature, which employs metaphor, analogy, myth, koan, song anddance. It does not aspire to describe what remainsindescribable, to say more than we can possibly know, does notattempt to prove too much or to tell untellable stories. Theabove categories certainly have ontological implications(which get analytically frustrated) that might flow from thosedistinct phenomenological categories of our God-experience butthey honor, with reverent silence and respectful apophasis,the mysterium tremendum et fascinans.

Our panentheism is then saying much more about the value-realizations that grow out of our God-encounters but much lessabout causal joints and divine mechanics.

We affirm THAT values are being realized from experienceswithout specifying HOW.

It is worth noting that in our other metaphysical adventures,nowadays, we know better than to use a modal ontology ofpossible, actual and necessary but now substitute “probable”for necessary. Confronted with epistemic indeterminacy andontological vagueness in navigating proximate reality, howmuch more folly we would engage when attempting to describeultimate reality? Still, everywhere in reality, necessitysuggest itself even as, nowhere in reality, have we found itphysically instantiated. Charles Sanders Peirce speaks of ourabduction of the Ens Necessarium and I resonate with thatinference, weak though it may be. I precisely make the sameappeal to the Jewish intuition of God’s shrinking to make roomfor reality and my own theology of nature then sees emergent

14

reality participating in various degrees of semiotic freedomin an ontological-like hierarchy (crowned by the imago Dei).

So, I don’t embrace some neo-Platonic participatory ontologyof proodos, mone and epistrophe as a description ofmetaphysical reality, much less God ad intra or ad extra in anatural theology. But I do believe it is enormously helpful tohonor and thereby categorize the many human phenomenalexperiences of God that ensue from our subjunctive (as if)encounters of God in creed, cult, code and community in atheology of nature that is self-aware of its metaphorical,mythical, liturgical nature as qualifed by suitablekataphatic, apophatic and relational predication and generallyrevealed.

The Trinity and God’s relational nature is specially revealedas Love, exceeding anything we could otherwise inferempirically, logically, practically or morally from nature.

At least this is my attempt to grapple with the same issues.

Systematic Theology?

Sometimes, to me, it feels like systematic theology is an

oxymoron, practical theology is a redundancy and natural

theology is a fool's errand. And where natural theology is

concerned, I'm talking about the kind that gets all

metaphysical using somebody's pet root metaphor, be that being

or substance or process or social-relational or flavah du

jour. Our realization of life's values just seems a lot more

informal, a lot messier, if you will, than all of the

otherwise neat formulas that the theo-wonks are fashioning

with the aim of shoehorning creation & Creator into some One

SiZe FiTs AlL Gospel sandals.

15

But a theology of nature that begins within the faith and

spontaneously breaks into lyric and psalm and myth and koan

and song and poem with metaphors cascading and collapsing ---

engenders fascination and mystery, awakens desires and

longings, fosters communal celebrations and forms ecological

sensibilities, reinforcing how everything belongs. In this

belonging our desires are formed such that compassionate

behaviors naturally ensue.What we call our beliefs, then, are

more so interpretations, less so descriptions, what we might

call existential disjunctives that suggest: if we live as if

... then thus and such!

So, we participate imaginatively by celebrating with God,other, world and self as if we all really belonged to oneanother in solidarity and compassionate interactions thenensue toward others and our environment.

Finally, since all interpretive approaches are inescapably

tautological and all metaphors eventually collapse, one way

science can enhance our understanding of God's word and

creation is by providing more accurate descriptions for our

interpretations such that our metaphors are more robust (last

longer before collapsing - as we mine their meanings) and our

tautologies are more taut (tautologies do not provide new info

but that doesn't mean they are not true or that all are

equally true; there are criteria for how well they "fit"

reality).

The Gospel Brand

16

What differentiates the Gospel brand is an interpretation ofreality as both created & friendlier than we could everimagine. Authentic friendship, however, transcends the needfor extrinsic rewards (what's in it for me?) and enjoys therobustly relational intrinsic rewards (truth, beauty,goodness, freedom, trust, love) that are ends unto themselves,their own reward, in no need of apology or explanation.

Now, "to transcend" does not mean to "go without" but, rather,"beyond."

Still, for some, it might invite a re-EMPHASIS?

Another implication is that religion's core mission is tointerpret reality and not to otherwise describe, norm or evenevaluate it, all activities (e.g. science & moral reasoning)that are already transparent to human reason. This is not

to suggest that it would not have moral implications for, ifwe act as if we really believe the Good News, we will thenexceed the demands of justice!

An Existential Disjunctive - to live as if

Christian faith, as an existential orientation/interpretivestance (Christology/Pneumatology), has normative implications.Beyond our practical and moral norms with their extrinsicrewards, it introduces a new category of norms, the unitive,which are intrinsically rewarding. These unitive norms providesuitable means for moral ends but their aim transcends ourpractical and moral concerns.

As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters ourimaginative participation in an intimate relationship with theTrinity thus orienting our historical perspectiveeschatologically, sanctifying our cultural aspirationstheologically, empowering our societal institutionsecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentallyand saving our political endeavors soteriologically. And whatsingular reality orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals andsaves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. The normsof Christian love foster our realization of solidarity withall of reality.

17

As an interpretive stance, Christian faith fosters ourimaginative participation in an intimate relationship with theTrinity thus orienting our historical perspectiveeschatologically, sanctifying our cultural aspirationstheologically, empowering our societal institutionsecclesiologically, healing our economic orders sacramentallyand saving our political endeavors soteriologically. And whatsingular reality orients, sanctifies, empowers, heals andsaves? Love. Love transforms our ultimate concerns. The normsof Christian love foster our realization of solidarity withall of reality.

Communal Discernment

communal discernment - my favorite redundancy, and it applies

in science, philosophy & religion b/c, in my approach, at

least, epistemology is epistemology is epistemology (contra

any notion of, for example, a religious epistemology vs other

types). This is not to say that there is no such phenomenal

experience as "hearing from God" but, even then, the

individual will be processing (chewing & digesting) it through

(self-critical) lenses provided during formation in community

& the fruits of same (or lack thereof) are subject to the

prudential & theological judgments of community (another

source transcendent of one's mere self).We don't want to deny

signs & wonders, which may be proleptic realizations of what

may some day be an eschatological fullness but we want to

resist the tendency to sensationalize them in a way that

devalues the splendor of the ordinary and the stupefaction we

should all be experiencing in every waking (and dreaming)

moment at the ... the ... the ...

Church Polity

18

Beyond the difficult to pin down empirical data re: the exact

nature, rates, causes & handling of abuse incidents, in one

denomination vs another (and some fairly good studies are

emerging even as some fairly dubious & facile analyses

persist), there is a related issue in play re: church polity

vis a vis any question re: a grassroots 'people's

reform' of the church.

It may be that, in theory, the sense of the faithful (sensus

fidelium) or "what has been received & practiced by the

faithful" is what guides the Teaching Office (magisterium) but

it seems pretty obvious to me that, in practice, this process

has been seriously flawed.

Apparently, this is less the case with the methodologies

employed in formulating & articulating social teachings even

as it has clearly been the case where church disciplines (e.g.

celibacy, women's ordination), liturgical practices (e.g. open

communion, sacramental reception by divorced & remarried) and

moral doctrines (e.g. contraception, homoerotic behavior) are

concerned. Catholic social teaching has experienced three

rather seismic shifts in methodology. In Catholic social

teaching, Charles Curran describes three methodological shifts

in emphasis from: 1) classicism to historical consciousness 2)

natural law to personalism and 3) legalism to relationality-responsibility.

This methodological shift implicitly invites &

19

fosters the collegial participation of lay experts &

commissions (iow, us anawim - of both genders, even), social &

political scientists, academic theologians and so on in a much

broader & deeper consultative, active-listening process.

The good news, then, is that the seeds of reform are there for

the planting if only the church could cross-pollinate its

seminal social doctrine cultivation and plant and nurture them

in the furrows of its church discipline, liturgical practice &

moral doctrine rows. This will require pulling the weeds of

patriarchalism, hierarchicalism, clericalism, sexism and so on

from those rows as has been done on the others. Or, to change

metaphors, one has reason to hope that the seismic shifts that

have already taken place already, to the edification of the

faithful and the world community writ large, will cause some

tectonic reshuffling as their aftershocks emanate out from

that epicenter.

There are roles to play, then, in ongoing institutional reform

and there are end-arounds, too, via non-institutional vehicles

(not mutually exclusive). In some sense, it seems to me that

the hierarchicalism & clericalism is not just a top-down

oppression but that it reflects where so much of the laity

remains.We don't want to over-identify THE church with either

its institutional form or its clerical leadership but we

cannot deny that their re-formation and ongoing transformation

would help advance the Kingdom. A significant but

marginalized minority continues to voice prophetic protest and

live in loyal dissent; others change denominations or employ

non-institutional vehicles.Whatever the case, a denomination

20

is but a means and not the end, thank God.

The Role of Government

In an ideal world, there would be no coercion needed at all.

Government is a necessary evil because we are fallible,flawed, finite. Political statecraft, especially at thefederal level, must maintain the public order, best it can. Totry to accomplish more than that, especially in a pluralisticsociety, isn't workable and quickly devolves into thecounterproductive, precisely because coercive force encroacheson personal dignity & will demoralize "the governed."

The government, then, is to be about the administration ofjustice, leaving the demands of charity to individualinitiatives. Even what have traditionally been called"entitlement" programs are not really in place to administer

mercy; rather, they are in place to maintain the public orderb/c w/o social security, medicare & medicaid, for example,

society could otherwise be brought to the brink of chaos anddisorder via outright criminality. That's why it is aptly

named "social" and not, rather, "retirement" security.

I would not go so far as to say that all can meet their own

needs b/c, sometimes, due to bad luck, misfortune and other

at-risk situations, even life's basic necessities will remain

out of reach. I am also not suggesting that the collective

resources of our population are so scarce that maybe even all

of our population's basic needs might not be met by them! The

nuance is that I am saying that the government is in no

position to commandeer those resources that we, thru our

selfish habits of consumption, are not otherwise willing to

freely share via our individual and nongovernmental charitable

21

initiatives.

The Goose would selfishly fly away is the problem, I'm afraid.

If the government were really about administering charity andmercy, don't you reckon we'd have done such a long time ago?

The tax code should be socially & economically neutral & not

used to incentivize the allocation of private capital. They

can give the collected revenues away to whomever they'd like

per the wisdom of their appropriations commitees. Also, I hope

they seriously study the practicality of taxing consumption &

not income & never both.

In the case at hand, erroneously and so-called tax-breaks for

Big Oil, the incentives should be repealed for all

manufacturers or none. Again, neutrality.

To balance the budget, both spending cuts & revenueenhancements are needed & the lionshare of the latter mustcome from a rising ecomomic tide rather than tax hikes.

Spending cannot be based first on society's needs b/c those

will always exceed our available governmental resources, which

must be defined as a sustainable percent of annual GDP. Needs

require, then, some tragic triage decisions.

Some always focus on the Goose & some on the eggs. No goose,

no eggs!

22

See Reasons and Values of the Heart in a Pluralistic World:Toward a Contemplative Phenomenology for InterreligiousDialogue, John Sobert Sylvest & Amos Yong, Studies inInterreligious Dialogue, Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Date: 2010 Pages:170-193

http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article&id=2058666&journal_code=SID

23