Permanence

At the risk of establishing a disturbing trend of self-referential writing, I want to consider the permanence and impermanence of writing. This is important to me because I have considered writing papers and books, and I always cease because I cannot get over the hump of writing something important or useful or universal enough to be set to type and paper. That is partially why this digital medium is more valuable to me than an actual journal would be - the apparent impermanence of the digital text allows me to write without the weight of eternal future criticism. Not to be dower.

My problem with writing did not originate with my own desire to write. I have big problem with some books, specifically books in which the authors do not include an apology for themselves, or establish a tone of hesitance and mystery. I cannot trust books, and I dislike them to seem trustworthy. This is particularly problematic when it applies to Church documents, like the Catechism or Canon Law Codex(CCC or CIC).

Loveable, respectable theologians recognize the relative impermanence in their writings. It is the shallow theologian who hasn't realized the deep mystery and paradox of the universe, humanity's existence, and God's involvement. Good theologians recognize this even at their most passionate moments. Indeed, any impassioned, univocal claim to truth or right is well argued, clearly the product of years of intense reflection and prayer. No theological truth comes easy, if they come ever. But Vatican documents, especially the CCC, are written with smug self surety. It is ironic and obnoxious at best, misleading and evil at worst.

I am particularly offended by the tone of the CCC, which I only ever own in contest, and hide in the back of my shelf, and let collect dust proudly. Its tone of easily accessible answers in a quick-research arrangement encourages readers to treat it as an encyclopedia of theology. Real encyclopedias of theology exist, but their authors usually require no less than four closely-typed pages for each entry. The CCC delivers each half-truth as a tasty tidbit fact, like the daily stock report. Even in games of Trivial Pursuit the answers are more developed.

The CCC was originally intended for Bishops, who, with a PhD in theology, could benefit from what was essentially the latest checklist of Vatican orthodoxy. Bishops can read paragraphs behind each word, and worlds of meaning and debate behind each trite truism. But it was so darn handy-dandy it has become the standard issue for any religious education, to the detriment of religion and education.

Two big issues are at stake- where does the Church (read, Pope) get off writing anything like this, including the usual Vatican pronouncements; and is all written work bad.

The Church is not democratic. In its structure it is essentially oriented to a head, namely Jesus, or Truth. There is no debate at the top. God is or is not in favor. There are norms. No relativity (ala BVI). While we struggle for a more democratic heirarchy, and while this does make a major impact on the experience and meaning of religion (which is no small change, but the effectiveness of the mission of God), Truth is not up for debate. And, predictably, Truth comes from the top.

But but but there is a lot of debate surrounding the infallibility of the Vatican. All bishops are called the Full Representatives of Christ (in the CIC, no less), and an entirely different model of the episcopate is demonstrated by the Eastern churches. Indeed, the Roman approach to the episcopacy - the papacy - is THE major blockage to union with Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans. The favored model, which I think has a fool proof case (another post), has the bishop of Rome presiding in Love, as a fellow bishop, with no extraordinary power but only a sense of prestige for his historical significance. Indeed, then, the earthly Church would be more democratic, even at the top.

And yes, all written words are bad if written as truth. Written words are not truth. They are temporary, limited, brief. Truth is the universe. Read a newspaper article from even the most reliable source, and find what they leave out. How did they firefighters feel? Were the EMT welcome? Did the governor eat breakfast that morning? Was Saturn rotating properly? Words are limited. Remember that, B.