Catholic Sensibility

Searching for the value of personal experience in the realm of faith The conjunction of Deal Hudson's publicized fall from grace and a few blogosphere discussions on the value of personal experience got me thinking this morning. Let's take 'em in reverse order and try to tie it together. Neotraditionalist Catholics have spoken of their distrust in bringing personal experience into the realm of theology and faith. "I've known many married people and women who possess all the qualities of good spiritual leadership. It's hard for me to believe Jesus would not want them to be priests." How many times has that argument crossed our ears? Several years ago in Iowa, a parishioner told me I was the best case he knew for a married priesthood. His daughter was in my children's choir, and I greeted his young son every weekend after one of the Masses at which I didn't play. He and his wife were very active in baptism prep, so I also saw them at baptism liturgies early Sunday afternoons. I was honored by his observation (though it's been since the early 80's that I gave that path a serious thought). His experience of me was as more than a music director. It could easily have been a woman in my shoes doing liturgical ministry at this parish. The same observation would have held true. Is it really so different that someone sees priestly qualities in a person who is married or female? I don't think so. Hopefully our current crop of priests came to their office because somebody told them they had what it took. Mentors had personal experiences of young men. That led to discussions, prayer, serious consideration, and seminary. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? Are such experiences of the Holy Spirit? Rarely do Catholics keep a priest-quality list in their hip pocket. Are such intuitive judgments a conscious antagonism of the hierarchy and its expressed positions? Rarely do I find authentic ministers tooting their own horns, "Look at my gifts, my abilities! Ordain me!" Most advocates of women's ordination would happily renounce their own possibilities if it meant that others would have the opportunity. It's hard for me to see that the Holy Spirit might not be working through the inner distillation of observation, emotion, common sense, and perception. In the context of community, I think personal experience brings a needed voice to the faith experience. In considering a marriage, for example, one's past experience is often part of the picture. How could it not be? If a person has trouble making committed relationships, how could she or he think that knowledge of the church's teachings on divorce or adultery would preclude possible transgression in the future? In other words, if I have a track record for certain things as a single person, what makes me think a sacrament plus my total recall of the Catechism is going to keep me on the straight and narrow? If I've been unfaithful or untruthful with relationships with the opposite sex as a single person, should I be concerned about maintaining faithfulness to a spouse? Of course I should. I'd be an idiot if I thought my own intellect could float my boat. At the very least, I have prayer material I can bring to God or something experiential a mentor, spiritual director, or confessor can use to focus my virtue. Of course, personal experience can be a deception. This is why personal experience applied to faith should always be lensed through the Christian community: one's spouse, pastor, teachers, trusted friends who will tell us when we're on the right track and when we're full of spit. Deal Hudson's problem isn't that NCR is out to get him. Observing from his e-mail missives and his public commentary in many places, his problem is that he's too much in his head, and his own head is tripping him up. There's no question he's a gifted intellect, but he's also a victim of his own skewed perspective of life's experience. Make no mistake: he relies on his past history. The NCR profile actually shows a one-track life and everything he's done is centered around being a persuader. Think about it: youth minister, Baptist minister, professor, publisher. Hudson's jobs all look the same to me. In each one, he used theunbeatable combination of reasoning and charisma to influence and steer people's judgment. Maybe in his personal life, he's permitted himself to be swayed, but in the public sphere, that would look too much like flip-flopping. For a mature Christian, the focus of the life experience-plus-community discernment is one's own metanoia. A Christian is supposed to turn around, change, and go a new way. A Christian is supposed to be persuaded by God. We're supposed to let ourselves be steered by God to align to the Divine Will. A person who usurps the role of the persuader short-cuts themselves in the process of salvation. And eventually, such people will cause untold harm in others, especially the young, the innocent, and the neophytes. This is one reason why I tend to distrust authority. I saw signifcant abuse in my times as a school student, both in public and Catholic schools. It seemed more severe in Catholic schools, probably because I was old enough (grades 6 through 12) to discern hypocrites, bullies, dictators, and other types. Some authority I know I can trust. They have a track record. Their actions align closely with their words. Often, they themselves exhibit signs of turning around, changing, letting themselves be influenced in positive and godly ways. And when others follow them without the trapping of groupie-ism, that adds to the positive sense. So when I get the mail appeals from Fr Fessio, the Acton Institute, Crisis, NRO, and others on the conservative side (if I see them before my wife puts them in the recycle bin) I pause for a bit. Inevitably, their pitch is not to my faith, but to my intellect. They present careful arguments why I should subscribe or donate, why I should believe what they write, and why I should support their view. Maybe I would give them points in a debate match. But faith isn't determined by score. In contrast, I think of my new pastor. In the seven weeks I've worked with him, he asks my opinion as well as makes suggestions. Here's an authority, I think, whom I can respect. He's not here to be a persuader, but to make the best decisions and discernments for the good of the parish. To be fair, I've also known more conservative Catholics to be similar in outlook, allowing themselves to be steered in a good direction. Hudson, Fessio, and many other conservative bigwigs don't have that appearance. And again, to be fair, I've also known many liberals who just like them. The key is not what the ideology looks like (in the sense of conservative/liberal), but how the core of faith is presented and lived. Being able to persuade someone is a brilliant but dangerous gift.