"Our churches are the 'upper room' where not only is the Last Supper renewed but Pentecost also." - - - Henri de Lubac (1947) in Catholicism, ch. 3 (last sentence). Photo: the reconstructed Upper Room in Jerusalem.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Paradigm Shifts

Ever since philosopher Thomas Kuhn published years ago his landmark book on the structure of scientific revolutions, speakers and writers have loved to speak of "paradigm shifts." I recently heard an audio tape in which best-selling author Stephen Covey of the book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People predictably spoke about changing paradigms. The paradigm motif reminds me of how Jesus in his parables referred to cultural realities that his audience was familiar with in that time and place. Some parables speak of the shrewdness of a merchant or of a steward about to be fired--references that remind us of the plethora of books and tapes on business leadership, like those of Stephen Covey, in our own time. In a way, we can use the talk of "paradigm shifts" that is so embedded in our American culture to speak to our culture and to ourselves about the import of the Catholic paradigm.

The examples and applications are profuse. For example, I recently reviewed a book on the charismatic renewal by the preacher to the papal household. This particular book in effect calls for a paradigm shift in how many Catholics view their faith experience. The book calls for the unleashing of the grace granted in the sacraments through a process of again invoking the Holy Spirit in deeper conversion. This call is a paradigm shift for many Catholics who may focus instead on discrete acts of piety or devotion apart from such a deeper conversion in the Holy Spirit.

Another example takes place in the always controversial arena of sexual morality. Recently, I became aware of an incident at a public state university where female college students on campus were handing out condoms to anyone walking on campus as part of "Sex Awareness Week"--as if anyone in modern America needed to become, somehow, more "aware" of sex! What paradigm were these young women operating from in their actions? We can call it the paradigm of recreational sex. Under this very common paradigm, sexual acts are seen as having no effect on character. Instead, sexual acts are seen as mere biological functions that just need certain precautionary measures to ensure "safety."

Of course, in great contrast, the Catholic paradigm sees sexual acts as highly definitive, highly momentous, and dramatically defining moments for a person's character, integrity, and future. The Catholic paradigm would be to have a "Character Awareness Week" in which people were challenged to see how all acts, and especially sexual acts, can have a dramatic effect on character. The girls should have been handing out the Gospel, instead of condoms. The Gospel parables and sayings would have challenged and provoked true awareness and thinking, instead of deceiving the public that recreational sex was "character-safe."

We can also see the significance of these two just described, conflicting paradigms in a wider context. For example, some people, including Catholic Americans, just can't seem to spot the reality of scandal anymore. Let's be clear and define scandal as the presentation of serious sin as if it were not serious or significant and thus making it appear acceptable and innocuous to others. We see it all the time in our culture: the family invites the sexually cohabitating partner of one of their children over for Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner thus legitimizing what is not legitimate. Some even expect spouses to socialize with the former sexual partners of their current spouse, as if they were socializing with mere friends from the past. Again, as in the case of the incident at the state university, the paradigm we see is one in which sexual activity has no moral significance. The Catholic paradigm is extremely different: what is momentous must not be trivialized. I suggest that human nature, whether Catholic nor not, whether Christian or not, offers the same paradigm for the importance of sexual activity as the Catholic paradigm does.

Finally, let me speak of a paradigm that is even more prevalent than the recreational sex paradigm and is in my view a pillar of the recreational sex paradigm: the American paradigm of materialism. The materialism paradigm says that we are our income. The most important thing is not a chaste daughter or son, but a "successful" daughter or son who gets a high income job, preferably by the route of prestigious academic achievement. When income and social prestige become the single most important things about a person, then we can see why things like sex become trivial in the culture. The culture will fight tooth and nail for a tax deduction or a capital gains break, but cares not a whit about virginity. Again, the Catholic paradigm is, in contrast, that one's character is the single most important thing about a person because it is the person and is the key to the person's destiny.

When you see so many strange things happening around you or accepted by so many, even some who claim to be Catholic, ask the paradigm question: what is the paradigm behind the activity or the custom or the assumptions involved? Once you define the paradigm, then you can decide if you want a paradigm shift, if, as Covey also says, you want to rewrite the script--or, to use the old-fashioned word, a conversion.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I disagree that to allow a cohabitating partner over for Thanksgiving is legitimizing the relationship. One way to have any influence at all with the Faith on others, is to invite them over. How would you know for sure that the other people coming to dinner are all in a state of grace? What about Uncle Joe that drinks a lot, and Cousin Shelley that has had lots of cosmetic surgery in noticeable places. And then there's Brother John, who is getting a divorce, and you know he's got his eyes out for someone. Brother-in-law Frank doesn't believe in God, and sister Jenny's son Dallas went to prison for robbery. She sticks up for him. Tell me . . . WHO CAN COME TO THANKSGIVING DINNER? Suppose you fight with your wife all the time and are just putting on a big show that day anyway, cuz you two haven't been speaking. Should you be there?

God Bless.

Oswald Sobrino said...

Response to previous comment:

I disagree with inviting the "shack up" pair unless the opportunity is used to present unequivocally the Christian point of view that the couple should live chastely. If one is not willing to take that stand at a family gathering (most would not be so willing), then the invitation should not be made in the first place to both persons together; but the relative who is part of this couple can and should be invited to come alone or with someone else. Otherwise, the invitation to the live-in couple is communicating the very opposite of the truth to everyone present.

As to your point about being sure if everyone else is in a state of grace, I agree with you that being in a state of grace should not be the criterion for inviting anyone or for being there oneself. To pose that criterion (which I never stated in the post) is a straw man argument. Rather, the criterion should be whether our actions are witnessing to the truth or are sending the message that it's all OK even when the behavior is destructive to those invited, either directly or as a bad example.

As to the other hypothetical cases you mention, if Uncle Joe gets drunk at the dinner, he should be told that he is not welcome until he starts cleaning his act up and that you will help him get in touch with AA. If he's sober at the dinner, no one, including him, will interpret his presence as approving of alcohol abuse. The cosmetic surgery issue is, in my view, trivial and irrelevant. The atheist brother-in-law should be invited and welcomed. So should the lady with the son in prison. But if the atheist attacks theism, one should gracefully present the other point of view (and, in any event, not hesitate to exhibit one's genuine faith in God at the gathering). If the lady justifies robbery (which I doubt she would do anyway), gracefully present the other point of view. She needs sympathy; she did not rob anyone, she is innocent. As to the guy getting a divorce, he should also be welcomed. But if he denigrates marriage, then marriage should be gracefully defended, with empathy for his recent problems. Inviting a person in the process of divorce is not legitimizing the divorce, which, in any event, may very well involve events and factors beyond the man's control. I know men facing divorce who do not want to divorce. I think most divorced people wish their marriages had fared better and made the divorce avoidable. Being divorced is more like losing a loved one to death than like the active, on-going sin of shacking up. In many divorces, no sin is involved. It is just a tragedy. And in fact, as I understand it, the Church, at least in the U.S., requires a civil divorce prior to reviewing a request for a declaration of nullity.

In sum, the test I would apply is not whether someone is in a state of grace; but rather whether the behavior at the gathering contradicts the truth. A sober alcoholic, a lady with cosmetic surgery or with a son in prison, a divorcing man who is not preaching that divorce is great, a respectful and non-aggressive atheist, hosts who decide to be civil with each other for the occasion are not contradicting Christian truth by their behavior at the gathering. But a couple living openly in sin that comes together to the dinner is openly contradicting the objective truth of the Gospel by their very presence as a couple even if they don't mention their lifestyle.

My answer is not intended to be harsh or adversarial. I am glad you posted your comments because they have made me think further and more deeply, which benefits me and other readers. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.