Christmas in Wartime. From a Norwegian Bishop, Instructions on How Not to Despair

(s.m.) Erik Varden, 50, has been bishop of Trondheim sin­ce 2019, and then also of Tromsø. Since last September he has hea­ded the epi­sco­pal con­fe­ren­ce of Scandinavia. From a Lutheran and effec­ti­ve­ly agno­stic fami­ly, he con­ver­ted at the age of fif­teen after hea­ring Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 2, “Resurrection.” He has been a Cistercian monk sin­ce 2002, and was abbot of Mount Saint Bernard Abbey in England. His late­st book, “Chastity”, publi­shed a year ago in the United States by Bloomsbury and then trans­la­ted into seve­ral lan­gua­ges, auda­cious right from its title, is a fasci­na­ting jour­ney bet­ween the Bible and great music, lite­ra­tu­re, pain­ting, from Homer to the Desert Fathers, from Mozart to a good dozen modern wri­ters and poe­ts more or less distant from the Christian faith. A faith that Varden wan­ts to express in ways that are under­stan­da­ble even to tho­se who are com­ple­te­ly unfa­mi­liar with it, appea­ling to uni­ver­sal expe­rien­ce and try­ing to read this expe­rien­ce in the light of bibli­cal reve­la­tion.

Two Lents ago Varden was among the signa­to­ries, toge­ther with the bishops of Scandinavia, inclu­ding “papa­bi­le” Stockholm car­di­nal Anders Arborelius, of that “Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality” which Settimo Cielo publi­shed in its enti­re­ty, for its extraor­di­na­ry ori­gi­na­li­ty of lan­gua­ge and con­tent, capa­ble of spea­king to modern man of all the rich­ness of the Christian vision of sexua­li­ty, with fide­li­ty to the Church’s mil­len­nial magi­ste­rium intact and at the same time in clear oppo­si­tion to “gen­der” ideo­lo­gy.

The fol­lo­wing inter­view was publi­shed on Christmas Eve in the Italian new­spa­per “Il Foglio.” The Norwegian bishop speaks with Matteo Matzuzzi, who asks him about what the “spi­rit of the times” wan­ts to impo­se on the com­mon thin­king and also on Christians, which Varden turns on its head with acu­men at times sur­pri­sing, as when he explains that today’s world is not “post-Christian,” but if any­thing “post-secular”; that Christianity is not a uto­pia but a faith of extraor­di­na­ry rea­li­sm; or again that “cen­ter” and “peri­phe­ry,” in the Church, are not geo­gra­phi­cal expres­sions, becau­se the true cen­ter, the Alpha and the Omega, whe­re­ver he may be, is the Lamb.

The bishops of Scandinavia, name­ly Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland, are at the head of nume­ri­cal­ly slight Catholic com­mu­ni­ties. But the high qua­li­ty of their sta­te­men­ts is an ele­ment of sur­pri­se that the other epi­sco­pa­tes of Europe have alrea­dy expe­rien­ced seve­ral times at the continent’s mee­tings. This is also evi­den­ced by Varden’s per­so­nal blog, which has the title of his epi­sco­pal mot­to, taken from a com­men­ta­ry by Gregory the Great on the pro­phet Ezekiel: “Coram fra­tri­bus intel­le­xi.

*

Christianity is no utopianism

Interview with Erik Varden, from “Il Foglio” of December 24, 2024

Q. – It is Christmas. There is much talk of hope. I think instead of the tren­ches of Ukraine, of Gaza, Lebanon and Syria: to claim that all will work out well is almo­st an insult. Christian hope comes to our aid. What is its true signi­fi­can­ce, even in rela­tion to war?

A. – Christianity is no uto­pia­ni­sm. Biblical reli­gion is supre­me­ly, in some ways shoc­kin­gly rea­li­stic. The great tea­chers of faith have always insi­sted that super­na­tu­ral life must build on a true apprai­sal of natu­re. We must train our­sel­ves to see things as they are, our­sel­ves as we are. To have Christian hope is not to expect eve­ry­thing to work out alright. Not eve­ry­thing does. To hope is to have con­fi­den­ce that eve­ry­thing, even inju­sti­ce, can be pur­po­se­ful. The light “shi­nes in the dar­k­ness.” It does not obli­te­ra­te the dark – yet; that will be for the new hea­ven and the new earth in which “the­re shall be no more night.” Here and now, hope glim­mers. That is not to say it is incon­se­quen­tial. There is a bles­sed con­ta­gion in hope, ena­bling it to spread from heart to heart. Totalitarian powers always work to obli­te­ra­te hope and indu­ce despair. To school our­sel­ves in hope is to exer­ci­se our­sel­ves in free­dom. That is an art to prac­ti­se assi­duou­sly in a fata­li­st, deter­mi­ni­st atmo­sphe­re.

Q. – Christmas has a myste­rious aspect that fasci­na­tes even non-believers. I think of Claudel, who was con­ver­ted whi­le hea­ring Vespers at Notre Dame at Christmas in 1886. Or of Jean-Paul Sartre, the athei­st par excel­len­ce, who wro­te in one of his sto­ries: “The pale Virgin con­tem­pla­tes her child. One ought to depict on her face an anxious stu­por that has appea­red bu once on a human coun­te­nan­ce.” What is this myste­ry of Christmas that speaks to eve­ryo­ne?

A. – Is some­thing of the stu­por of which Sartre speaks not in fact evi­dent in many depic­tions of the Virgin as she appears in Byzantine ico­no­gra­phy? The attrac­tion of Christmas is embed­ded in its evan­ge­li­cal emblems: the new­born child; the pro­cla­ma­tion of pea­ce; the asser­tion that men are still capa­ble of “good will;” the pea­ce­ful silen­ce of a night during which crea­tion – humans, ani­mals, and stars – is expec­tan­tly, har­mo­niou­sly arran­ged around a self-evident focus. Claudel wro­te in “L’Annonce fai­te à Marie,” a work I reread each Christmas, “Bien des cho­ses se con­su­ment sur le feu d’un coeur qui brû­le.” Christmas lets us intuit the lon­ging of our heart. It gives us a sen­se of what pas­ses, of what remains. The chal­len­ge is to let that intui­tion beco­me con­cre­te in reso­lu­tions, not con­fi­ned in pas­sing sog­gy sen­ti­ment.

Q. – You are a bishop in one of the peri­phe­ries of which Pop Francis often speaks. Even a European peri­phe­ry. In the south we see signs of how the faith of the Old Continent is being lost, pres­sed by an ever stron­ger secu­la­ri­sm. How do you see things, from the peri­phe­ry?

A. – A peri­phe­ry is defi­ned with regard to a cen­tre. In a Christian optic, the cen­tre is not a spot on the map. The cen­tre is whe­re­ver Christ’s myste­ry is pre­sent in full­ness. The peri­phe­ry is cal­led to beco­me cen­tre. We see this dyna­mic at work in the Church’s mis­sio­na­ry histo­ry. The fla­me of faith shi­nes brightly, again and again, in unex­pec­ted pla­ces. What was the asto­nish­ment of self-confident Europeans coming to India in the six­teenth cen­tu­ry, thin­king they had arri­ved at the mar­gins of civi­li­sa­tion, only to find that the cen­tre had obtai­ned the­re sin­ce apo­sto­lic times, whi­le their ance­stors were wor­ship­ping sticks and sto­nes? The ter­mi­no­lo­gy of peri­phe­ries is often deployed by insti­tu­tions or peo­ple cer­tain of being, by vir­tue of inhe­ri­ted pri­vi­le­ge, cen­tral. Faith chal­len­ges this assump­tion. Thus the ter­mi­no­lo­gy beco­mes hel­p­ful­ly self-subverting. It chal­len­ges us to ask, “Where, in fact, is the cen­tre?”. In Biblical terms, this is a mat­ter of fol­lo­wing the Lamb whe­re­ver he goes, let­ting go of the com­for­ta­ble assump­tion that he will neces­sa­ri­ly stay put whe­re I am.

Q. – In your book “The Shattering of Loneliness” you wro­te in the Introduction: “I saw that, to live, one must learn to look death in the eye.” I ask you: is the pre­sent cli­ma­te of dro­w­si­ness not par­tial­ly cau­sed by the fact that for gene­ra­tions Europe does not know at home the rea­li­ties of war and death?

A. – There is indeed a risk is that we take pea­ce for gran­ted, thin­king it some­how nor­ma­ti­ve. It is not. History reminds us of this insi­sten­tly. The older I get, the more it impres­ses me that the fir­st death recor­ded in Scripture is a death by fra­tri­ci­de. It sets a para­digm we see repea­ted with drea­d­ful con­si­sten­cy up to our own day. The Prologue to the Rule of St Benedict cites a Psalm that gives a hel­p­ful per­spec­ti­ve. St Benedict exhorts us to “seek pea­ce and pur­sue it.” We are remin­ded that pea­ce is dyna­mic, a living rea­li­ty to be foste­red A European half-century without major wars was some­thing of a mira­cle. Now, the hori­zon dar­kens. The ini­qui­tous war in Ukraine rages on; the col­lap­se of one govern­ment after the other, as fra­gi­le coa­li­tions explo­de, gene­ra­tes anxie­ty; the rhe­to­ric of aggres­sion spreads like a noxious fume. My sen­se is that our con­ti­nent, its young peo­ple not lea­st, are waking up to this. Covid was a wake-up call. It brought death’s spec­tre clo­se. It shat­te­red illu­sions that affluen­ce or scien­ti­fic exper­ti­se would keep us safe, that death is only some­thing that hap­pens to others. Have we suf­fi­cien­tly reflec­ted on the­se les­sons? I think not. I see it as a lost oppor­tu­ni­ty, poli­ti­cal­ly and cate­che­ti­cal­ly.

Q. – Global media have ena­bled us to fol­low the spec­ta­cle of the re-dedication of Notre Dame, resto­red after the fire. A huge cro­wd was the­re. The rich and mighty were queuing to get in. Ordinary peo­ple con­tri­bu­ted to the finan­cing of the work, qui­te as in the Middle Ages. I ask: are we still, despi­te eve­ry­thing, atta­ched to the­se sym­bols that speak to us of our iden­ti­ty?

A. – That the­re is atta­ch­ment seems evi­dent. The out­pou­ring of grief that fol­lo­wed the fire at Notre Dame was moving. All honour to all who have con­tri­bu­ted to its rebuil­ding. To what, thou­gh, are we atta­ched? To a great Christian sanc­tua­ry? Or to a cul­tu­ral tali­sman? In Advent the Church lets us read the pro­phet Isaiah. It is sobe­ring stuff. Isaiah gives us won­der­ful ima­ges of con­so­la­tion, pro­phe­cies of incar­na­tion. He also tells us that redemp­tion will ari­se out of ruin. He makes it clear that it is the Lord who orche­stra­tes the destruc­tion of Jerusalem and the exi­le of its peo­ple, wan­ting to teach them, pre­ci­se­ly, not to put their tru­st in monu­men­ts of strength but to live, instead, by gra­ce, sustai­ned day by day in their exi­sten­tial fra­gi­li­ty. It is the Church’s task to ensu­re that our archi­tec­tu­ral and arti­stic patri­mo­ny remains a potent sign of God’s good­ness, ena­bling the encoun­ter of our being of dust with God’s uncrea­ted splen­dour. Have we suf­fi­cient con­fi­den­ce in our tra­di­tion to help our con­tem­po­ra­ries see what super­fi­cial­ly identity-shaping pla­ces and objec­ts signi­fy and impli­ci­tly pro­mi­se? There is sco­pe here for self-examination. For often, it seems to me, we capi­tu­la­te to secu­lar moder­ni­ty and stri­ve to make our heri­ta­ge ‘rele­vant’ on its terms; whi­le our times in fact look to us for some­thing dif­fe­rent.

Q. – Further to my pre­vious que­stion: do we Europeans of the Third Millennium have an iden­ti­ty issue? Do we still know whe­re we come from, whe­re we are going?

A. – Not for a long time has con­sen­sus been so fraught on fun­da­men­tal issues: on what it is to be a man or a woman, what it is to be a human being, what a socie­ty is sup­po­sed to be. Public discour­se has long buz­zed omi­nou­sly like a wasp’s nest. Anyone enga­ging in it has run the risk of being stung. My sen­se is that the trend is now tur­ning, with more peo­ple asking que­stions, see­king sound rea­so­ning and relia­ble para­me­ters. The Catholic intel­lec­tual tra­di­tion has an immen­se con­tri­bu­tion to make here. While not wishing to down­play the pre­e­mi­nen­ce of cha­ri­ta­ble work or the cau­ses of justi­ce and pea­ce, I belie­ve the intel­lec­tual apo­sto­la­te is para­mount for the deca­des ahead. The Word beca­me flesh to imbue our very natu­re, crea­ted in the ima­ge of the Word, with “logos.” To embra­ce that aspect of our being and arti­cu­la­te it is to begin to remem­ber our digni­ty.

Q. – In so-called “public opi­nion” we often hear it said that what the Church offers is ana­chro­ni­stic, espe­cial­ly in the fields of moral life and even bio­e­thics. After all, peo­ple say, why should we say no to eutha­na­sia if a per­son suf­fers? The easier road is the one that is more plea­sing. The pro­blem is that many repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of the Church likewi­se ask, in the media, whe­ther we haven’t to “chan­ge” or “reform.” What is you opi­nion? How use­ful, or how risky, it is to listen to the Zeitgeist?

A. – The Zeitgeist is a fic­kle thing! Of cour­se, we must listen out for it: it brea­thes a mes­sa­ge we must take into account. But to seek to fol­low it is self-defying. By the time we have arri­ved whe­re it was a moment ago, it has shif­ted. The Church is by its natu­re slow-moving. There is a risk that we enga­ge with what we assu­me are con­tem­po­ra­ry trends when the­re is nothing left but dying embers. So we go haples­sly, and absurd­ly, from one extin­gui­shed bon­fi­re to the next. It is sure­ly more pro­mi­sing, inte­re­sting and joy­ful to hold fast to what endu­res. That is what will speak to human hearts and minds in our age as in any age. The Second Vatican Council was mar­ked by the incen­ti­ve to drink dee­ply from the sour­ces. The best vita­li­ty of Catholic life in the twen­tieth cen­tu­ry sprang from the exhi­la­ra­tion of unco­ve­ring for­got­ten wells, to find the water the­rein lim­pid, fresh. What has hap­pe­ned to the exhi­la­ra­tion? Why do we now feel we must aban­don the wells in order to set up col­lap­si­ble stands by ven­ding machi­nes?

Q. – It is often clai­med that our world, the Western world, is now post-Christian. I would like to ask if you agree with this defi­ni­tion or if the real risk is that of gene­ra­li­sa­tion? Then, how can tho­se who today decla­re them­sel­ves Cristian maker their pre­sen­ce felt in the mid­st of this rea­li­ty?

A. – As it hap­pens, I am not in agree­ment. Theologically, the term ‘post-Christian’ makes no sen­se. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, and all the let­ters in bet­ween. He car­ries con­sti­tu­tio­nal­ly the fre­sh­ness of mor­ning dew: not for nothing do we throu­ghout Advent storm hea­ven sin­ging, “Rorate!”. Christianity is of the dawn. If at times, during given periods, we feel ensh­rou­ded by twi­light, it is becau­se ano­ther day is in the making. If we do want to deal in the cur­ren­cy of “pre” and “post,” I think it more appo­si­te to sug­ge­st that we stand on the thre­shold of an age I would call “post-secular.” Secularisation has run its cour­se. It is exhau­sted, void of posi­ti­ve fina­li­ty. The human being, mea­n­whi­le, remains ali­ve with deep aspi­ra­tions. Consider the fact that Marilynne Robinson and Jon Fosse are read world­wi­de; that peo­ple flock to the cine­ma to watch the films of Terence Malick; that thou­sands are see­king instruc­tion in the faith. These are signs of the times. They should fill us with cou­ra­ge. They should make us deter­mi­ned not to put our light under a bushel. The Church pos­ses­ses the words and signs by which to con­vey eter­ni­ty as real. The English wri­ter Helen Waddell once wro­te: “To get any con­cep­tion of infi­ni­ty is like taking the sto­ne off the mouth of a well.” Is that not a key Christian task for the pre­sent moment? “Sursum cor­da!”.

————

Sandro Magister is past “vati­ca­ni­sta” of the Italian wee­kly L’Espresso.
The late­st arti­cles in English of his blog Settimo Cielo are on this page.
But the full archi­ve of Settimo Cielo in English, from 2017 to today, is acces­si­ble.
As is the com­ple­te index of the blog www.chiesa, which pre­ce­ded it.

Share Button
Cet article a été posté dans  English.  Ajoutez le permalien à vos favoris.