religions
Article A“LiturgicalMysticismofOpenEyes”:JohannBaptistMetz,
CaryllHouselander,andPandemicLiturgySamanthaSlaubaugh
Citation: Slaubaugh,Samantha. 2021.A“LiturgicalMysticismof OpenEyes”:JohannBaptistMetz, CaryllHouselander,andPandemic Liturgy. Religions 12:685. https:// doi.org/10.3390/rel12090685
AcademicEditor:EdwardFoley
Received:15July2021
Accepted:23August2021
Published:26August2021
Publisher’sNote: MDPIstaysneutral withregardtojurisdictionalclaimsin publishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Copyright: ©2021bytheauthor. LicenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland. Thisarticleisanopenaccessarticle distributedunderthetermsand conditionsoftheCreativeCommons Attribution(CCBY)license(https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
DepartmentofTheology,UniversityofNotreDame,NotreDame,IN46556,USA;sslaubau@nd.edu
Abstract: TheGermantheologianJohannBaptistMetz(1928–2019)calledforaspiritualitythatsees moresuffering,notless,themoreliberateditis;hehasdescribedthisasa“mysticismofopeneyes.” Thistheologicalvisioninvolvesallpeople,livinganddead,becomingfreetostandassubjectsbefore God.CaryllHouselander(1901–1954),anEnglishauthor,developedaliturgicallyinfusedmysticism focusedonseeingChristineachperson.HervisionofChristinotherswasrootedincreatively portrayingtheparticularitiesofhumanlifeinthegreat“rhythm”oftheChrist-lifelivedinthe MysticalBodyandexpressedintheliturgy.Thisarticleproposesthatjuxtaposingthesetwoauthors revealsa“liturgicalmysticismofopeneyes,”playingoffMetz’sinitialphrasing.TheworkofMetz andHouselandertogetherpresentsafruitfulliturgicaltheologyforChristiancommunitiesduring andinresponsetothepandemicastheyengagequestionsofsuffering,justice,andresponsibility.By rootingourdecisionsaboutliturgicalandsociallivesina“liturgicalmysticismofopeneyes,”the churchmayremainrootedtoaliturgicalspirituality,whilealsorecognizingandbeingopentothe sufferingofindividualsandcommunitieswhileliturgiesarealtered,movedonline,orpostponed altogether.
Keywords: JohannBaptistMetz;CaryllHouselander;COVID-19;pandemic;socialjustice;suffering; oppression;liturgy;worship;ethics
1.Introduction
Atfirstglance,thereseemstobelittleincommonbetweenJohannBaptistMetz (1928–2019),theGermanpriestandprofessionaltheologianknownforpoliticaltheology, andCaryllHouselander(1901–1954),theEnglishlaytheologianandartistknownfor liturgicallyinfusedwork.However,eachtheologianwasdeeplymarkedbyWorldWar II,makingatheologyofthepassion,orofcompassion,aprimaryaspectoftheirwork. TheirexperiencesofmassdeathandsufferingmakebothMetzandHouselanderhelpful sourcesoftheologyastheworldreelsfromthelossoflifeandsufferingcausedbyboththe coronaviruspandemicandtheoppressionthatflowsfromwhitesupremacyandWestern colonialism.1 Readingthetwotogether,moreover,furtherenrichesthegapsineachauthor’s thought.WhileMetzworkedonpoliticaltheology,hedidnotdevelopaliturgicaland sacramentalfocus.Scholarssuchas(Morrill 2000)and(Eggemeier 2012)havetakenupthis lacunainMetz,proposingotherauthorstocomplementMetz.Houselander,ontheother hand,focusedgreatlyonliturgyandsacramentallifewhilesayingmuchlessonpolitical theology.However,eachauthorpresents,throughdifferentapproaches,amysticaltheology ofopennesstotheotherinwhichthememoryofChristisbroughttobearasaninterpretive frameworkforboththepresentandthefuture.Metz’s“mysticismofopeneyes”combines withHouselander’sliturgicalmysticismintoa“liturgicalmysticismofopeneyes,”that challengesustodaytomakechoicesforourcommunitiesoffaiththrougharootednessin liturgythatdoesnotdistortthememoryofChrist’spassion.Tosupportthisclaim,this essayfirstexaminesMetz’stheologicalvisionofamysticismofopeneyes.Second,itlooks atkeythemesinHouselander’sliturgicallyrootedmysticaltheology.Finally,theessay concludeswithquestionsaimedtointerruptourpracticeofliturgyinlightofboththe
coronaviruspandemicandconcernsforsocialjustice.Theseinterruptingquestionsinvite ustoconsiderhowasolidaristicliturgylooksinourparticularcommunitiesaswewrestle withracism,death,andphysicalandemotionalsufferinginapandemic.
2.JohannBaptistMetz:“MysticismofOpenEyes”
TobeginafruitfuljuxtapositionofMetzandHouselander,oneshouldstartfirstwithan explorationofwhatMetzenvisionedinthephrase“mysticismofopeneyes.”Metzargued that“Jesusdidnotteachanascendingmysticismofclosedeyes,butratheraGod-mysticism withanincreasedreadinessforperceiving,amysticismofopeneyes,whichseesmore andnotless.Itisamysticismthatespeciallymakesvisibleallinvisibleandinconvenient suffering,and—convenientornot—paysattentiontoitandtakesresponsibilityforit,for thesakeofaGodwhoisafriendtohumanbeings”(Metz 1998,p.163).ForMetz,atrue mysticism,oneinwhichapersonentersthemysteryoftheirownexistenceasasubjectin God’spresence,isalwaysamysticismthatseesmoreoflifeandnotless.Metzwasnot interestedinamystical“opium”inwhichthoseuncomfortablewiththepainandsuffering oftheworldescapetoanetherealexperienceofoblivionbeforeGod.Rather,tobeasubject beforeGodistobea“witness,”onewhois“involved,witheyesthatsee,inthathistory wherepeoplearecrucifiedandtortured,hatedandmiserlyloved;”forasMetzargues,only in“howwedealwithothers canitbeknownhowwethinkaboutGodandwhatwe thinkofGod”(Metz 1998,p.163).Simplyput,a“mysticismofopeneyes”is“amysticism ofanunconditionalobligationtofeelthesufferingofothers”(Metz 2005,p.32).
Metz’sapproachtoarticulatingaChristianmysticismreachestothecoreofhisown practicalfundamentaltheology.ForMetz,theologyis“mystical-political”(Metz 2007,p.29); thatis,theologyisnevermerelypuredoctrinedresseduplaterinpraxisandnarrative. Theologyisalwaysbothpracticalandfundamental.Praxisanddoctrineareintertwined andmisunderstoodwhenseparatedfromeachother.Metzarticulatedthissuccinctlywhen hearguedthat“Christmustalwaysbethoughtinsuchawaythatheisnotjustthought. ... everyChristologyisnourishedbyapraxis:thepraxisofdiscipleship”(Metz 2007,p.62). Thisdiscipleshipmustbeunderstoodasapraxisofsufferingsinceitcannotbeachieved apartfromChrist’sowncommandto“pickupyourcrossandfollowme.”
Praxisassufferingisnotmasochisticbutliberating;“thehistoryofsuffering[is]a historyoffreedom”(Morrill 2000,p.31).Thewillingnesstoseemoresufferingandto haveamysticismofopeneyesisatypeofresistancetoapathy.Thispraxisextendsfroma Christologythatflowsfirstandforemostfromthecross;therefore,amysticismofopeneyes isamysticismthatseesthedoctrineofChristologyflowingfromthe“dangerous”memory ofChrist’spassion,death,andresurrection.Metzexplainedthatthismemory“holdsa particularanticipationofthefutureasafutureforthehopeless,theshatteredandoppressed. Inthiswayitisadangerousandliberatingmemory,whichbadgersthepresentandcallsit intoquestion”(Metz 2007,p.89).Asdangerousasthismemoryis—forittakesoneaway fromthesafe,distantGodwhohaslittlepracticalimpact—itisfundamentallyaliberative memory.TheabilitytorememberthisdangerousnarrativeofGodcomingintotheworld, suffering,andrisingagainfreesonetoseewithopeneyestheverynarrativeitselfinone’s ownparticularsocialandhistoricalcontext.Metz’sownthoughtischaracterizedbythe needtotakehisownwitnessofsuffering“nottothepsychologistbutintothechurch” (Metz 1998,p.2).DuringWorldWarII,uponreturningfromdeliveringamessage,Metz foundhiswholecompanydead;hebegantoask,“whatwouldhappenif onedid notallowoneselftobetalkedoutofsuchunreconciledmemoriesevenbytheology,but ratherwantedtohavefaithwiththemand,withthem,speakaboutGod?”(Metz 1998, p.2).AsthedeathofotherswasafoundationaleventforMetz’stheologicalthought,he understandsamysticismofsufferingtoberootednotin“aself-referentialmemoryof suffering(therootofallconflicts!),butintheformofamemoryofothers’suffering,inthe formofaremembranceofthestranger’ssuffering”(Metz 2005,p.33).
Inadditiontothememoryofsuffering,thememoryofChrist’spassion,death,and resurrection,Metzalsofocusedontwootherconceptsthatilluminateamysticismofopen
eyes,namely,narrativeandsolidarity.2 Asfornarrative,Metzclaimedthat“[t]helogosof thecrossandoftheresurrectionhasanindispensablenarrativestructure.Confrontedwith thehumanhistoryofsuffering,faith ... ispassedonindangerous-liberatingstories,under theimpactofwhichthosehearerswhoareaffectedbythembecome‘doersoftheword’” (Metz 2007,p.194).Bynarratingone’sownworldintothenarrativeofthedangerous memoryofChrist’spassion,death,andresurrection,thecreedalanddoctrinalcontentof faithbecomes“understoodasformulasinwhichthischallengingremembranceisspelled outpublicly”(Metz 2007,p.89).ProclaimingthedangerousmemoryofChristinhistory requiresliberatedmysticalsight,asthissightisthewaytotruesolidaritywithallpeople, andthusthewayforeverypersontobecomefreetobesubjects.Thisisthe“taskgiven toreligion,”accordingtoMetz,namely,“tostandupsothatallpersonsmightbesubjects insolidarity,justasmuchwhenconfrontedbyviolentoppressionasinthefaceofthe caricatureofsolidarityfoundinformedmassificationandininstitutionalizedhatred” (Metz 2007,p.59) 3 Metzholdsintensionacritiqueofprivatizationthatresultsfromthe Enlightenmentandtheoppositeextremeof“massification,”orthe“abstractnegationofthe individual”(Metz 2007,p.59).TobeasubjectbeforeGodistostandbeforeGodfullyas oneself,relatedalwaysandalreadytoallothersubjects.Theindividualisalwaysunique, butalwaysalsorealizedincommunion.Theparadoxofparticularityanduniversalityisa constantthreadwoventhroughoutMetz’svisionofa“mysticismofopeneyes”whichsees theuniversalityofthedangerousmemoryofChristalwaysinitsparticulariterationsin history.4
Everyhistoricalandsocialcontextmustbeviewedthroughandintegratedintothis narrativeofthedangerousmemory.Assuch,amysticismofopeneyesisamysticism ofinterruption.Thesufferingofothers,convenientornot,interruptsourunderstanding ofthenarrativeandaskspointedquestionsaboutone’sownandone’scommunity’s responsibilityandresponsetothememoryofthepassion,death,andresurrectionthat isbeinglivedoutinagiventimeandplace.Thismysticismofopeneyesisintertwined withthepraxisofdiscipleship,whatMetzcalleda“practicalChrist-formedness”whichis thesignoftheSpiritatwork(Metz 2007,p.155).Althoughbrief,thissummaryofMetz’s mysticismofopeneyesshouldbeenoughtoofferacomparisonwithHouselander’sown theology.However,twofinalpointsareimportanttohighlight.
First,thesolidarityimplicatedinamysticismofopeneyesextendseventothedead whohavebeenvanquishedandforgotten.Metzarguedthatsolidarityis“expandedinto ananamnesticsolidarity,asolidarityofmemorywiththevictimsofhistory”(Metz 2007, p.68).ThedeadvictimsofhistoryareexemplaryofthetypeofsolidarityMetzproposed isrequiredbyamysticismofopeneyes;“whenitcomestothedeadthereisnoexchange relationship Thelovethatmournsforthedeadisthatformoflove thatcannotbe takenupintoaconsumersociety’sexploitationstructures”(Metz 2007,p.51).Thedead havenothingtoofferthelivingfromaconsumerstandpoint.Yet,theeschatologicalcontent ofthememoryofChrist’spassion,death,andresurrectionmakesspaceinparticularfor thedead,whoarepromisedresurrection.Therefore,amysticismofopeneyesseesnot onlythelivingwhosuffer,butalsothedeadwhohavesufferedandbeenforgotten.This solidarityinterruptsandshapesaneschatologicalunderstandingofthehoped-forfuture.
Second,thepraxisofsolidarityiswell-expressedinprayer,inwhichoneisfreetostand asasubjectbeforeGodinsolidaritywithallpeople,notasaprivatizedindividual.While Metzdidnotexpoundindepthonliturgy,ritual,andsacrament—whatMatthewEggemeier calls“distinctivelacunae”(Eggemeier 2012,p.54)—hisowntheologicalprojectdovetails naturallywithliturgicaltheology.BruceMorrillhasdemonstratedthispointbyplacing MetzandAlexanderSchmemenninconversation(Morrill 2000).Moreover,prayer,ritual, andsacramentarenotincontradictiontoMetz’stheologicalvision,thoughtheyaresubject tomanipulationbybourgeoisreligion.Metzwasconcernedwithliturgythatenablesa spiritualityofclosedeyes.Hearguedthataliberatedspirituality“cannotbelimitedto apurelyculticexperience,isolatedfromandunburdenedbyconflicts,repression,and challengesineverydaylife”(Metz 2007,p.93).Incontrastwitha“purelycultic”spirituality,
Metzenvisionedachurchthat“hasanearforthedarkprophecyofthissufferingofothers” (Metz 2007,p.94).Moreover,Metzdidcallfortheintegrationof“thesacramentalevent intostoriesoflifeandofsuffering ... [to]makeitclearthatthesacramentaleventisa narrativeofsalvationwithinthesestories”(Metz 2007,p.190).Notonlyisliturgyrelevant toMetz’sworkduetoitsnarrativestructureofproclaimingthedangerousmemoryof Christ,butinprayerGod“callsustobecomesubjectsorunconditionallysupportothers becomingsubjects and[God]callsustoremainsubjectsinthefaceofguiltandin oppositionbothtothedissolutionofindividualidentityinto‘themasses’andalsoto apathy”(Metz 2007,p.80).PrayeristheplaceinwhichwenarratethememoryofChrist insolidaritywithall;thatistrueevenespeciallyifwebearguiltorresponsibilityforthe oppressionthattakesawayanother’sfreedomtobesubjectsbeforeGod.Liturgyiswhere thehistoryofthevanquished,nottheconquerors,andtheguiltandresponsibilityofthe churchmustbeproclaimedasinterruptionstoourliturgicaltheologyandpraxis,orelse wewillnotbefreetostandassubjectsinsolidaritybeforeGod.
3.CaryllHouselander:LiturgicalMysticism
TurningnowtoCaryllHouselander’sarticulationofmysticism,solidarity,andliturgy, bothsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenherandMetzwillbecomeapparent.Houselander’smysticaltheologyiscapturedbyherdescriptionofthreevisionaryexperiences detailedinherautobiography, ARocking-HorseCatholic.Inthefirstvisionatthebeginning ofWorldWarI,shesawanostracizedBavariannuncrying;Houselanderlookeddown inembarrassmentandwhenshelookedbackup,shesawthenunwearingthecrownof thorns(Houselander 1988,p.74).Thenunwhosenationalitymadeheranenemyduring thewarwasrevealedasoneparticipatinginthepassionofChrist.Duringthesecond visionin1918,shesawaniconofChristtheKingcrucifiedfloatinginthesky;shelater discoveredthatthevisionofChristhadthefaceoftheexecutedRussianTsar,Nicholas II(Houselander 1988,p.111).Houselanderexplainedhowthisvisiontaughtherthat Christ’slifewasevenlivedbythewealthyandpowerful.Thethirdvisionoccurredwhen Houselanderboardedafullundergroundtrain.Shedescribedhow“quitesuddenlyIsaw withmymind ... .Christinthemall. ... notonlywasChristineveryoneofthem,living inthem,dyinginthem,rejoicinginthem,sorrowinginthem—butbecauseHewasinthem, andbecausetheywerehere,thewholeworldwasheretoo. notonlyallthepeoplein allthecountriesoftheworld,butallthosepeoplewhohadlivedinthepast,andallthose yettocome”(Houselander 1988,pp.137–38).Houselanderhighlightedthetheological broadeningofthesevisions,statingthatherthirdvision“wasnotaseeingofChristinone person,asithadbeenwiththeBavariannun,orinoneparticularsortofperson,asithad beeninthelivingiconofChristtheKing.ThistimeitwasChristinall”(Houselander 1988,p.137).FindingChristinallpeopleandsituationswasthecoreofHouselander’s theologicalproject.
Afterhermysticalexperience,shecapturedthismysticismofopeneyesinhertheologicalandcreativework.WhileMetz’sarticulationofthemysticismofopeneyesisbest understoodthroughthecategoriesofmemory,narrative,andsolidarity,Houselander’s usedthethemesofcreativity,rhythm,andtheChrist-life.First,movingbeyondnarrative, Houselanderaffirmedallcreativeworkisintegraltothestructureoftheology.In TheRisen Christ,shedescribedChristasthearchetypalartistwhocreatesoutofoverflowinglovein theTrinity;therefore,“wecanallbeartistsandcreators:inourattitudetoourworkwecan makewhatwemakefirstofallforlove”(Houselander 1958,p.84).Second,integraltothe idealofcreativityisHouselander’sconceptof“rhythm.”Shedidnotdescribeherpoetryas poemsbutas“rhythms.”Shewrotetoafriendthat“Ihaveforalongtimefeltthatakind ofcommunionofcontemplationamongusalliswhatisneededintheworld,andIdeliberatelywriteRhythmsandgivethemtoallsortsofpeopleinordertostartsomerecollection intheirsouls”(Houselander 1945,“FromaLettertoMaisieWard”).Ratherthanletting prayertakeheroutoftheworld,theRhythmswereawayinwhichHouselanderbrought theworldintoherprayer.SimilartoMetz,sheenvisionedaspiritualitythatwasnotan
ascendingescapefromsuffering,butoneinwhichGoddescendstotheworld,present eveninitsmundaneexperiencesasaRhythmthatbeatsfromthelife,passion,death,and resurrectionofChrist.
Third,HouselanderarguedthathumanlifepartakesintheonelifeofChrist,theartist whoserhythmofloveunitesallcreation.In ThisWaristhePassion,writtenaboutWorld WarII,sheclaimedthat“because[Christ]hasmadeus‘otherChrists,’becausehislife continuesineachoneofus,thereisnothingthatanyoneofuscansufferwhichisnot thepassionhesuffered.Ourredemption,althoughitwasachievedcompletelybyour Lord,does,byaspeciallovingmercyofhis,gooninus.Itisoneunbrokenactwhichgoes oninthemysticalbodyofChristonearth,whichweare”(Houselander 2008,p.1).The Christ-lifeisnotsomuchan imitatioChristi thatisaccomplishedbyone’sowneffort,but rather,asinHouselander’sthirdmysticalvision,itisChristhimselflivingmysticallyin eachindividual.Whatisrequired,accordingtoHouselander,issimplytolearntorecognize theChrist-lifebeinglivednotonlyinone’sownlife,butinthelifeofeachperson.Inother words,wemusthaveopeneyestothesufferingofChristlivedintheworld.Similarto Metz,HouselanderdidnotseeChrist’suniversalpresenceinhumanityasleadingtoward someunnamedmassofpeoplethatwearecalledtothinkabout.Rather,bothauthorsare clearthattheuniversalandtheparticulararemetinChrist,neitherconfusednordivided. Christisinallbutuniquelyineach.
ParalleltothetwonotesonMetz’swork,IwishtohighlighttwoaspectsofHouselander’sthought.First,whileMetzprivilegedthedead,Houselanderprivilegedchildren andinfants,anothercategoryofhumanitythatareoftenforgottenasrealsubjects.Asurvey ofHouselander’sworkrevealsthatwhileshespentagreatdealoftimeonthepassion ofChrist,thelifeoftheChrist-child,bothinactualchildrenandinadults,isaprimary theme.Thetwoarenotseparatemomentsasmuchastheyarethebeginningandendofa circle;asHouselanderputit,“BethlehemistheinscapeofCalvary”(Houselander[1949] 1995,p.69).Houselandertaughtthatallaretobecomeaslittlechildrenbylivingthe Christ-childlife,bywhichsheenvisioned,“wemustgetbacktruevaluesinsteadofthose thatarebasedonmaterialism,publicopinion,andsnobbery; wemustregainsimplicity andhumility wemustbecomemakersandpoetsagain”(Houselander[1949] 1995, p.87).HouselanderemphasizedthatbeingsubjectsbeforeGodrequiresustobecome astheChrist-child,whichisdeeplyrelatednotonlytocreativitybutalsotoapraxisof suffering.“IftheinfantChristisfosteredinus,nolifeistrivial.Nolifeisimpotentbefore suffering,nosufferingistootriflingtohealtheworld,toolittletoredeem,tobethepoint atwhichtheworld’shealingbegins”(Houselander[1949] 1995,p.101).Houselander’s focusonchildrenisbestunderstoodasawaytoseeChristinthesufferingofthosewho havetheleasttocontributetosocietyandarethusignoredorforgotten.
Second,unlikeMetz,Houselander’smysticismisexplicitlyrelatedtotheliturgical andsacramentallifeofthechurch.Houselandertaughtthat“theLiturgyistheexpression ofChrist’slove,hisprayerinhisMysticalBody,intowhichourownprayerisgatheredand integrated”(Houselander 1958,p.68).Liturgyisalso“thesupremeexpressiononearth oftherhythmicLawofGod”(Houselander[1949] 1995,p.43).UnlikeMetz,whomostly gesturesprovocativelytowardthenecessityofexpoundinguponthenarrativestructurein theliturgicalandsacramentallifeofthechurch,Houselanderactivelynarratedboththe lifeoftheworldintotheliturgyandtheliturgyintothelifeoftheworld.“Houselander describeseverydayoccurrencesinherlifeusingthevocabularyoftheliturgicalritesof thechurch”(Petrin 2020,p.224).Inarhythmtitled“LowMassonSunday,”Houselander affirmedamysticismofopeneyesthatisrootedinthecommunionofthefaithful: Theyarenotmoreblessed whosefeet aresetonthemountainpath, whoabideinthecloud, contentwiththetouch
ofaGodwhoisfeatureless, thanwe who,weakerinfaith, learnbytouchingHiswounds inthehumanrace thatourhands touchwithHispowertoheal: thanwe,atthewedding ofearthandHeaven, turningthewatertowine byaflingoftheheart toGod— inthelowliest, inthenearestathand. Wearethesimplebread groundforthesimplerHost. (Houselander 1945,p.36)
Christisnotpresentinthehostasifitwerethehidden,featurelessfaceofChrist inacloudofdarkness.Rather,thecommunionatmassisthecommunionofthepeople; theyarethegrainground,baked,andbrokentogetherintothehost,intoChrist.“Itis thebreakingoftheBreadwhichistheCommunionofall[humans]inChrist,inwhich themultiplelivesoftheworldareoneChrist-life,thefragmentarysorrowsoftheworld areoneChrist-Passion”(Houselander[1949] 1995,p.148).ForHouselander,theliturgy wasfoundationalforlivingalifewitheyesopentoseeChristinothers.Inthissense, IfollowEggemeier’sleadindrawinguponotherauthorstoilluminatewhatembodied practicesformindividuals,andinthiscase,entirecommunities,tonotonlyseebutalso respondtothesufferingoftheworld.EggemeierdiscussesSarahCoakleyandSimone Weilasauthorswhoarguefortheroleofcontemplativeprayerasatoolforrespondingto suffering;contemplationtrainsustopayattention(Eggemeier 2012,pp.54–57).Inasimilar vein,Houselander’sworkpointstoembodiedpracticesmissinginMetz’sarticulationofa “mysticismofopeneyes.”Theliturgyopensoureyes,trainsustopayattention,andinvites ourbodiestoparticipateinthatdangerousmemoryofthepassion,death,andresurrection ofChrist.ToreadMetzandHouselandertogether,then,istofinda“liturgicalmysticism ofopeneyes”.
4.Conclusions:QuestionsforLiturgicalTheologyandPraxisinLightofthePandemic Turningthentoourcurrentsituation,whatmightreadingMetzandHouselander togethercontributetoourliturgicaltheologyandpraxisduringatimewheninequality inoursocietyhasbeenhighlightedinsomanyways?AccordingtoMetz,amysticismof openeyesisaliberationthatallowsonetostandintruesolidaritywithothersbymeans ofthenarrativeofthedangerousmemoryofthepassion,death,andresurrectionofJesus. AccordingtoHouselander,aliturgicalmysticismistoseeandthencreativelyproclaimthe life,passion,death,andresurrectionofChristastoldbytheliturgyinthelivesofevery individual.CombiningMetz’spoliticaltheologywithHouselander’sliturgicaltheology leadstoa“liturgicalmysticismofopeneyes.”Theliturgyistheplaceinwhichwepublicly rememberthedangerousmemoryofChrist’spassion,death,andresurrectioninorder tohaveoureyesopenedbyGod’sgracetoseetheChrist-lifeinothers.Theimplications ofgroundingourfaithcommunitiesinaliturgicalmysticismofopeneyesaregoingto differdependingontheecclesialandlocalcommunityandthuscannotbefleshedouthere withanycompleteness.Instead,Iwishtoaskahandfulofquestionsthatmighthelpfully
interruptourliturgicaltheologyandbegintoexplorehowanswerstothesequestions mightempowerourliturgicalpraxistopubliclyproclaimthedangerousmemoryofthe Christ-lifebeinglivedinandaroundus.
First,arethemostforgottenpersonsandthosesufferingthemostinsocietythe onesatthecoreofourtheologicalunderstandingofChristintheliturgy?Ifwefollow MetzandHouselander,decisionsaboutsafetyprecautionsinapandemicmustbemade withaprimaryfocusontheimpactofthesedecisionsforthosewhomsocietypushes tothemarginsandthosewhohavebeendeprivedofthepowertopreventtheirown sufferingfromdiseaseorinjustice.Ithasbecomeevidentthatthosegenerallymarginalized bysystemsofoppressionarethosewhoaresufferingatahigherrateandwithgreater consequencefromCOVID-19.5 Themakingandenforcementofsafetydecisions,suchas masking,socialdistancing,oroutdoorandonlineworship,mustbemadeforthesake ofthoseneglectedbysociety,whethertheybeinthepewsornot.Furthermore,these decisionsmustbecommunicatedinsuchawaythatitinvitesandempowerscongregants toseethesufferingcausedbythepandemicasanarrativeofChrist’spassionanddeath. OurcatechesisonthesedecisionsshouldopeneyestoseethemysticalpresenceofChrist inthosewhosufferbehindhospitalcurtains,nursinghomedoors,factorywalls,and redlinedneighborhoods.Inpractice,thismightmeanholdingpastorallisteningsessions withcongregantswhoareupsetaboutsafetyprecautionsputinplace;itmightresultin tailoringsermonstosuchcatecheticalpurposes;itmightentailvirtualcommunicationsthat mystagogicallyinterpretnewliturgicalsymbolssuchasthespacebetweencongregants, thecomputerscreen,masks,spiritualcommunion,andalackofsinging.6
Additionally,withanunderstandingthatthosewhosufferinjusticeandoppressionare attheheartoftheliturgyandthattheyhaveauniqueauthoritytowitnesstothememory ofthepassion,death,andresurrectionofChrist,ministryteamsandparishionersalike oughttoactivelylistentothevoicesofthoseriskingtheirlivesto,suffering,anddyingfrom COVID-19,racism,andallformsofdisastersandsystemicoppression.Churchesoughtto beconsistentlycenteringthesemarginalizedandsufferingvoiceswiththeunderstanding thattheproclamationofthegospelcannotstandapartfromtheirwitnessandactive contribution.Thus,churchesshouldalsoexaminetheirvisibleliturgies.Whodopeople seeinthepews?Whodotheyseeinleadership?Whodotheyseeintheartworkthat adornsthespace,beitvirtualorphysical?Whoarewemissingatoureucharistictable,in ourordainedandlayleadership,andinourproclamationofthegospel?Istheliturgical settingexcludingthoseonthemarginsorisitre-centeredaroundthem?Aliturgical mysticismofopeneyesshouldflowfromandleadtoavisibleperformanceoftheliturgy thatsymbolizesitseschatologicalhopeofliberationandredemptionthroughart,layand clericalperformance,andtext.
Second,areweturningtoliturgiestocreativelyprotestinjusticeandmemorializethe dead?Houselanderespeciallychallengesourchurchestoembracethecreativeaspectof liturgyflowingfromGodtheArtist.Therefore,makingchangesduetosafetyprecautions shouldbeviewedasanopportunitytoperformandcreativelynarratethememoryofthe passion,death,andresurrectionofChristinapandemic.Ifliturgyisapublicproclamation ofthisdangerousmemory,canmoreoutdoorliturgiesandpublicservicesthatarenot eucharistic(thereforeavoidingexclusionaroundtheEucharist)aidinthisproclamation? Gatheringsafelyoutdoorswouldbeapublicperformanceofthechurch’sactiveresponse tothewitnessofsufferinginthepandemic.Moreover,churchesshouldbestrivingtodraw fromtheliturgicalrichesoftraditioninmeetingthecrisisofdeathandsufferingcaused bythepandemicandoppressionofallkinds.Churcheshavelongheldauniquesocietal roleinrememberingandprayingforthedead.Congregationscanturntotheirtradition’s liturgicalrepertoire,adaptingtheseliturgieswhennecessary,andperformliturgiesin memoryofallwhohavediedduringthispandemic.Whetherthisberequiemmasses,the officeofthedead,ormemorialservices,celebratingtheseliturgiesasthechurchcould actbothasaliturgicalremindertoparishionerstoseethedeadandthesufferingand alsoasapublicserviceforthemourningcommunity.Additionally,withavasthistory
ofprocessionalliturgiesandcall-and-responselitanies,Christianchurcheshavethetools tomystagogicallyinterpretprotestsforjusticeasaliturgicalact.Moreover,thechurch canactivelyutilizeoutdoorprocessionstosafelyperformmemorialsforthedeadand petitionsforthosesufferinginjustice,perhapsprocessingtolocalmemorialsites,around hospitals,placesofracialviolence,orprominentpublicplaces.Thephysicalmovementof diversebodiescomingtogetherandmarchingforwardhaspotentialtobeboththerapeutic inhealingdivisionsandalsopropheticintheirpublicpetitionstoGodforinjusticestobe maderight.
Third,andfinally,doweencourageworshippingcommunitiestostandassubjects beforeGodbynotrejectingourguiltandtheresponsibilitythatfollowstruesolidarity? Bothpublichealthmeasuresandeffortsforracialjusticehaveencounteredpushbackinside thechurch.However,confessionisanintegralpartofnearlyeveryliturgy,nottomention asacramentinseveraldenominations.Christiansthen,shouldbeequippedthroughtheir liturgicalformationtoclearlyandhumblyacknowledgetheirsins,bothcommunaland personal.Ourliturgiesmightbetterreflectthisneedtoaccepttheguiltandresponsibility thatflowsfromsolidaritywiththesufferingbyaddingoreditinganinvitationtoconfession thataddressesthechurch’sroleinprofitingfromorcausingoppressionandsufferingin theworld,includingthroughracism,colonialism,climatechange,abusesofpower,etc.7
Ourpetitionscanalsoreflectanoutwardconcernforjusticeandaninwarddesireforour owncommunalturningfromsinandtoGod.Thesendingoutattheendofmanyliturgies too,mightbetterreflectourcurrentsituationandbeaspecificcalltofightforjusticeinour communitiesgivenourowneucharisticliberationfromsin.TherhythmoftheChristian liturgyfromconfessiontocommuniontomissionintotheworldinvitesthechurchtostand insolidarity,unafraidoftheirownguilt.God’smercymeetsus,redeemsus,andsendsus intotheworldtoperformcommunalpenanceaswefightforjusticeandtakeresponsibility forinjustices.Beyondeucharisticliturgies,couldpublicliturgiesofrepentanceforthe church’sowncomplicityinsystemsofoppressionbeformativeforcongregantsandoffer thoseharmedbythechurchasteptowardfulljustice?
IfwelistentoMetzandHouselander,ourliturgicaltheologyandpraxiswillflow fromouranswerstothesequestions,andouranswersmustbeformedbycenteringand listeningtothosewhoaresufferingmostinthispandemic.Whenthisworkbegins,our liturgieswillstrivetorejectafalsepeacewithoutjustice;theywillturnfromaprivatized culticexperiencewhereindividualsareseveredfromacommunionofsolidarity.Inthe faceofsufferingandinequality,theliturgyshouldchallengeustoopenoureyestothe dangerousmemoryofthepassion,death,andresurrectioninthevanquished,forgotten, andoppressed;itshouldbewherewecreativelyworkinsolidaritytoshapeourhopefor thefutureinlightoftheChrist-lifebeingrevealedinthepresent.
Funding: Thisresearchreceivednoexternalfunding. ConflictsofInterest: Theauthordeclaresnoconflictofinterest.
Notes
1 ForanEnglishintroductiontotheworkofMetz,see(Ashley 1998).ThescholarshiponMetzissignificant;Houselanderismuch lessstudied. Ward (1962)isawell-knownbiography,andthereareseveralacademicarticleslookingatHouselander’swritings suchas Coulter (1990), Meconi (2014), Meszaros (2015),and Petrin (2020).
2 ThesearenottheonlytwothemesrelevanttoafullunderstandingofMetz’swork,ofcourse.ForanoverviewofMetz’ssix “centralelements”in FaithinHistoryandSociety,see(Morrill 2000,pp.21–26).
3 See(Vento 2002)forananalysisofhowMetz’sfocusonsufferingcancontributetofeministtheologyinlightofviolenceagainst womenandtheresultingnecessarypoliticalresistance.
4 Forexample,inthe“biographicalitinerary”thatprecedes APassionforGod,Metzexplains:“Ihaveworkedtoformulatea conceptoftheologythat,whileitrecognizesthepost-modernists’legitimatesuspicionofuniversalisticapproaches,doesnot collapseintoasheerrelativizationofculturalworlds.Ihavestriventodothisbystressingarespectforandobediencetothe authorityofthosewhosuffer.FormethisauthorityistheonlyoneinwhichtheauthorityofthesovereignGodismanifestedin theworldforallmenandwomen”(Metz 1998,p.4).
5 TheCentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention,forexample,indicatethat“Raceandethnicityareriskmarkersforother underlyingconditionsthataffecthealth,includingsocioeconomicstatus,accesstohealthcare,andexposuretothevirusrelated tooccupation”(CDC 2021).
6 Houselanderherselfengagedinthiscatechesisin ThisWaristhePassion,givingastep-by-stepmethodforspirituallyprayingthe massshoulditnotbeavailableduringthebombingsofLondon.Hercatechesisfocusesonlayparticipation,statingthatthemass “isnotasacrificeofferedbyapriestinwhichourpartismerelythatofadevoutaudience.Itisasacrificewhichgathersevery circumstanceofourlifetoitselfandistheverycoreofourbeing”(Houselander 2008,p.90).
7 See(Ramshaw 2017)forexamplesoflamentson“DiseaseandInfirmity”(p.22),“InjusticesinSociety”(p.23),and“Damageto theEarth”(p.24).
References
Ashley,JamesMatthew.1998. Interruptions:Mysticism,Politics,andTheologyintheWorkofJohannBaptistMetz.NotreDame:University ofNotreDamePress.
CDC—CenterforDiseaseControlandPrevention.2021.RiskforCOVID-19Infection,Hospitalization,andDeathbyRace/Ethnicity. Availableonline: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-deathby-race-ethnicity.html (accessedon14July2012).
Coulter,Moureen.1990.‘AMirrorSetbeforetheFaceofGod,’ArtandMysticismintheWorkofCaryllHouselander. StudiaMystica 13: 83–95.
Eggemeier,MatthewT.2012.AMysticismofOpenEyes:CompassionForASufferingWorldAndTheAskesisOfContemplative Prayer. Spiritus:AJournalofChristianSpirituality 12:43–62.[CrossRef]
Houselander,Caryll.1945. TheFloweringTree.NewYork:SheedandWard.
Houselander,Caryll.1958. TheRisenChrist.NewYork:SheedandWard.
Houselander,Caryll.1988. ARockingHorseCatholic.Westminster:ChristianClassics,Inc.
Houselander,Caryll.1995. WoodoftheCradle,WoodoftheCross.TheLittleWayoftheInfantJesus.Manchester:SophiaInstitutePress. Firstpublished1949. ThePassionoftheInfantChrist.NewYork:SheedandWard.
Houselander,Caryll.2008. ThisWaristhePassion.NotreDame:ChristianClassics.
Meconi,DavidVincent.2014.TwoApostlesofLoneliness:CaryllHouselanderandCatherineDohertyontheMysticalBodyofChrist. Logos:AJournalofCatholicThoughtandCulture 17:58–76.[CrossRef]
Meszaros,Julia.2015.TheDoctrineof‘DivineIndwelling’inElizabethoftheTrinityandCaryllHouselander. NewBlackfriars 96: 465–80.[CrossRef]
Metz,JohannBaptist.1998. APassionforGod:TheMystical-PoliticalDimensionofChristianity.TranslatedbyJ.MatthewAshley.Mahwah: PaulistPress.
Metz,JohannBaptist.2005.God:AgainsttheMythoftheEternityofTime.In TheEndofTime?TheProvocationofTalkingaboutGod TranslatedbyJ.MatthewAshley.Mahwah:PaulistPress.
Metz,JohannBaptist.2007. FaithinHistoryandSociety:TowardaPracticalFundamentalTheology.TranslatedbyJ.MatthewAshley.New York:TheCrossroadPublishingCompany.
Morrill,Bruce.2000. AnamnesisasDangerousMemory:PoliticalandLiturgicalTheologyinDialogue.Collegeville:TheLiturgicalPress. Petrin,AnnaAdams.2020.InsightsfromMrs.Murphy:CaryllHouselanderasLiturgicalTheologian. Worship 94:206–27. Ramshaw,Gail.2017. Pray,Praise,andGiveThanks:Litanies,Laments,andThanksgivingsatFontandTable.Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress.
Vento,JohannM.2002.Violence,Trauma,andResistance:AFeministAppraisalofMetz’sMysticismofSufferinguntoGod. Horizons 29:7–22.[CrossRef] Ward,Maisie.1962. CaryllHouselander.ThatDivineEccentric.NewYork:SheedandWard.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.