What is the Taize movement? The Taize movement is a self-described ecumenical monastic community founded after World War II by "Brother" Roger Schutz, a Protestant who felt a radical commitment towards the full reconciliation of all Christians. With a few followers he set up his small "community" in the village of Taize, France, and from there began an ecumenical "religious order" open to Christians of all traditions with an aim of building understanding across confessional lines, working towards full unity of all Christians and an interior commitment to Christ, which Pope Benedict XVI referred to as an "ecumenism of holiness" [2].
The ecumenism of Brother Roger and the Taize movement is based on a kind of inclusiveness that focuses solely on things Christians have in common while neglecting to go into issues that could be potentially divisive, a kind of "mere Christianity." Cardinal Walter Kaspar, who knew Brother Roger, described him ecumenism according to Taize in this manner:
"The search for unity was for [Brother Roger] a kind of guideline in even the most
concrete decisions of each day: to welcome joyfully any action that
could bring Christians of different traditions closer, to avoid every
word or act that could slow down their reconciliation." [3]
But is the Taize movement Catholic? Or rather, since we know it is an "ecumenical community", are prayers and practices derived from this movement fitting to be used in parish settings?
Before going any further, we ought to establish the fundamental point that
the Taize movement is not Catholic in any meaningful sense of the word. That does not mean it is bad; John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all spoken very highly of Brother Roger Schutz on a personal level, and undoubtedly the Taize experience has contributed to the erection of many meaningful bonds between Catholics and Protestants.
But the question is not whether there is anything positive about Taize, but whether or not Taize practices, prayers, songs, etc. are appropriate in parish settings. To this question I must answer with an unqualified negative. If Taize is not a formally in union with the Church and the Pope and has no intention to obtain this status (and one hallmark of Taize is that they pride themselves on not being bound to confessional ties), then
Let's look at Canon Law. Canon Law, as far as I know, has nothing to say about the incorporation of non-Catholic practices into Catholic parishes; this would be something each local Ordinary would legislate on. Nevertheless, Canon Law does give us a broad vision of the sort of activities and prayers the Church proposes as suitable for parish life.
Some Guidelines from Canon Law
First, let's look at Canon 209 on the rights and obligations of the Christian laity:
Can. 209 §1. The
Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to
maintain communion with the Church.
It is difficult to see how participating in a movement that eschews confessional ties and seeks no formal union with the Church of Rome does not violate the prescription of Canon 209 that Catholics maintain communion with the Church "even in their own manner of acting." Even if participating in Taize activities does not break communion, it is hard to see how it promotes it.
Next, Canon 210 on the obligation of the faithful to promote the growth of the Church:
Can. 210. All the
Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote
the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their
own condition.
The Christian faithful are not directed to work for the buildup of some concept "Christendom" or "Christianity" in general; they are called to "promote the growth of the Church" in particular; and as Vatican II and the
CDF teach, the Church of God is to be understood as the Catholic Church. We buildup God's kingdom by building up the Church. This leads us to the question of whether or not working to promote an non-denominational, ecumenical movement really leads to the promotion of the Catholic Church. Again, It is difficult to see how participating in a movement that eschews
confessional ties and seeks no formal union with the Church of Rome somehow promotes the growth of the Catholic Church.
Next, the obligation of the faithful to know the Catholic Faith:
Can. 229 §1. Lay
persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge
of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in
order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it
themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the
apostolate.
Does anyone doubt that the "knowledge of Christian doctrine" envisioned here is the teachings of the Catholic faith? This familiarity Christians are supposed to have of Christian doctrine is supposed to be necessary to enable them to live, announce, and defend it. Now ecumenical efforts, by their nature, tend to avoid those points of doctrine that are distinctively Catholic (these are the "divisive" doctrines Protestants talk about). How can Christians obtain the necessary specific knowledge to defend the Catholic Faith envisioned in Canon 229 when the particular points of Faith that are unique to Catholicism are omitted? Again, this Canon would not prohibit Taize activities, but it lends strength to the argument that such activities contribute little to teaching Catholic doctrine and that time could be better spent elsewhere.
Next let's look at the obligations of pastors in making sure their people are educated in the Catholic Faith:
Can. 528 §1. A
pastor is obliged to make provision so that the word of God is proclaimed in
its entirety to those living in the parish; for this reason, he is to take care
that the lay members of the Christian faithful are instructed in the truths of
the faith, especially by giving a homily on Sundays and holy days of obligation
and by offering catechetical instruction. He is to foster works through which
the spirit of the gospel is promoted, even in what pertains to social justice.
He is to have particular care for the Catholic education of children and youth.
He is to make every effort, even with the collaboration of the Christian
faithful, so that the message of the gospel comes also to those who have ceased
the practice of their religion or do not profess the true faith.
A pastor should make sure the word of God is proclaimed "in its entirety", that is, without "divisive" parts of it (like the spiritual and jurisdictional authority of the See of Peter, for example) being omitted for the sake of ecumenical dialogue. Note that pastors are to have special care to make sure parishioners get catechetical instruction in the "truths of the faith" and are to have particular care for "Catholic education" in the "true faith." It is a pastor's job to make sure that whatever is going on in a parish is specifically Catholic and promoting the "true faith." This would necessarily proscribe something like Taize, which is not a Catholic movement and as such does not promote "the true faith."
Finally, what norms does Canon Law envision with regards to the catechetical opportunities pastors are to make available to their parishioners?
Can. 779
Catechetical instruction is to be given by using all helps, teaching aids, and
instruments of social communication which seem more effective so that the
faithful, in a manner adapted to their character, capabilities and age, and
conditions of life, are able to learn Catholic doctrine more fully and put it
into practice more suitably.
To put it simply, whatever is used for catechesis must promote "Catholic doctrine"; not pan-Christianity, not a multi-denominational vague Christianity, but Catholicism. Taize materials and prayers are by their nature vague and written from a point of view of not promoting any specific denomination, much less the true faith proclaimed by the Catholic Church. In fact, Taize prayers and practices go out of their way to avoid promoting Catholicism. In that sense they are just your typical Protestant group, seeking for unity and oneness apart from the physical unity that comes from adherence to the Catholic Faith.
These norms of course do not prohibit Taize activities from being carried out at the parish level; ultimately this would be the call of the pastor or bishop. But the canons do give us a broad vision of how catechetical and devotional practices are to look at the parish level. Lay persons are supposed to occupy themselves with learning the Catholic faith and being able to defend it in their state in life; pastors are to make opportunities for such education available and by the solicitude guarantee the Catholicity of whatever materials or programs are used. In short, all the resources of a parish are to be directed towards the building up of the Catholic faith. The code does not envision a situation where non-Catholic materials or programs are brought in to do this, nor a situation where non-Catholic materials or prayers from something like Taize would be preferred over traditional Catholic prayers sanctioned by long use and Tradition.
The Popes and Taize
This should be enough to settle the question, if it were not for the problematic fact that Taize has been endorsed by several popes. Blessed John XXIII called Taize a "little springtime" and John Paul II referred to it as a "spring of water" [4]. The latter pontiff in particular seemed to regard Taize as a kind of experimental model for the new ecumenism and allowed certain liberties to be taken regarding
communio in sacris with Taize that would not have ever been permitted in other circumstances; more on this below. But for now, let's look at the attitude some of the popes have taken on Taize.
John Paul II visited Taize during his pontificate and was a friend of Brother Roger personally. During his visit, he made an interesting comment about the mission of Taize being to strengthen Protestant's ties to their own denominations. He said:
By desiring to be yourselves a "parable of community", you will help
all whom you meet to be faithful to their denominational ties, the fruit
of their education and their choice in conscience, but also to enter
more and more deeply into the mystery of communion that the Church is in
God’s plan." [5]
While it is undeniable that John Paul II endorsed Taize and spoke favorably of it, I cannot be anything other than mystified by his praise of Taize's role in helping Protestants be "faithful to their denominational ties." In other words, yes, Taize is great, if you want to help Protestants be better Protestants.
Yet, in the same sermon, John Paul II stated that the commitment to
dialogue and spirit of openness manifested in the Taize community were
valuable assets in restoring the "visible unity" of Christendom in the
quest for "full communion of one same faith":
"I do not forget that in its unique, original and in a certain sense provisional vocation, your community can awaken astonishment and encounter incomprehension and suspicion. But
because of your passion for the reconciliation of all Christians in a
full communion, because of your love for the Church, you will be able to
continue, I am sure, to be open to the will of the Lord.
By listening to the criticisms or suggestions of Christians of
different Churches and Christian communities and keeping what is good,
by remaining in dialogue with all but not hesitating to express your
expectations and your projects, you will not disappoint the young, and
you will be instrumental in making sure that the effort desired by
Christ to recover the visible unity of his Body in the full communion of
one same faith never slackens." [6]
With all due respect and
deference to the late pontiff, there is a certain contradiction in his
words. One cannot help but wonder how Taize is helping the disunited
Christians of the world towards "full communion" in "visible unity" if,
as John Paul states, Taize helps non-Catholics "to be faithful to their
denominational ties." Full visible communion is only possible if an
individual or ecclesial body is in formal union with the successor of
Peter; i.e., if they enter the Catholic Church.
How can this visible
unity be attained if Protestants are being encouraged to remain faithful
to their own denominations? It is an obvious contradiction, not unlike
Mother Teresa's
comments that the way she spreads the love of Christ is
by encouraging Muslims to be better Muslims and Hindus to be better
Hindus.
Benedict XVI also has praised Taize. As recently as December 29, 2012, the pope stated that Taize exemplified a
"spiritually lived ecumenism" and that the example of Brother Roger
calls us all to:
"let ourselves be guided by his
witness towards an ecumenism which is truly interiorized and spiritualized...may all of you be bearers of this message of unity. I
assure you of the irrevocable commitment of the Catholic Church to continue
seeking the paths of reconciliation leading to the visible unity of Christians." [7]
It would be interesting to know how Benedict defines an ecumenism that is "interiorized and spiritualized"; presumably he means an ecumenism that does not simply seek institutional communion but a true and deep conversion and true reconciliation of heart. However, it is interesting that neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI, despite noting Taize's commitment towards "reconciliation" and "full communion" mention actual return to the Catholic Church as a viable option. This is ironic, since only by return to the Catholic Church can there be any "full communion."
This situation with full communion is not that complicated. It could be solved tomorrow. It could be solved if all the Protestants of the world abjured Protestantism and joined the Catholic Church. The only problem is they don't want to. It's not a matter of seeking "paths of reconciliation", but of using charity, reason and prayer to guide our separated brethren to walk down the one path into the one sheepfold.
Do the popes support Taize? Yes they do, but their support for it is in the context of support for a broader "new ecumenism" that replaces what
has been called the traditional "outdated ecclesiology of return" with an ecumenism based on "shared faith experiences", as Cardinal Avery Dulles
once proposed. So the pope's support of Taize is a support of an experiment in the new ecumenism.
Taize and the New Ecumenism
Note in the comments above that Benedict XVI referred to the "provisional nature" of Taize. This is an interesting comment; it signifies that the status of the Taize community is not what is ultimately desired; that it will eventually give way to something more perfect. Yet, the term "provisional" seems to signify that Taize, though not perfect, will do for now. This a very interesting thing, for the pope seems to be suggesting that Taize represents a kind of transitional step on the road to "full communion" and "visible unity" (what that unity can look like is uncertain, since John Paul II also praised Taize for strengthening the existing denominational ties of its adherents). Taize is an experiment in the new ecumenism, and experiment in which traditional confessional boundaries are crossed and things that never would have been permitted traditionally are allowed as this experiment continues. There is a certain tension and ambiguity with regards to how Taize is treated by the Church.
The best example of this is Brother Roger Schutz himself. Brother Roger, a Protestant pastor from a Calvinist background who never repudiated Protestantism and never considered himself a Roman Catholic, yet he received Eucharistic communion from John Paul II;
he took communion every morning at the Catholic Mass in Taizé; and he
was given communion by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself, at the funeral
Mass for John Paul II. Brother Roger even received a Catholic funeral presided over by none other than Cardinal Kaspar. Brother Roger's participation in Catholic liturgies were so frequent that it was rumored that he had secretly converted to Catholicism, something his community vehemently denies. Those in the hierarchy who knew Brother Roger also deny he had any conversion to Catholicism [6]. What are we to make of Brother Roger's participation in
communio in sacris?
In a circumstance that can only be called extraordinary and entirely irregular and not sanctioned anywhere in Catholic Tradition, Brother Roger was granted permission to participate fully in the Church's Eucharistic celebrations
despite the fact that he was never received into the Church. As off as this sounds, this is the explanation offered by the Vatican for these anomalies. Let's listen to the words of Cardinal Kaspar himself, who called the Calvinist Reformed tradition "a beautiful blend of catechesis, devotion, theological formation and Christian witness" [8]. Kaspar says of Brother Roger:
"
As the years passed, the faith of the prior of Taizé was progressively
enriched by the patrimony of faith of the Catholic Church. According to
his own testimony, it was with reference to the mystery of the Catholic
faith that he understood some of the elements of the faith, such as the
role of the Virgin Mary in salvation history, the real presence of
Christ in the Eucharistic gifts and the apostolic ministry in the
Church, including the ministry of unity exercised by the Bishop of Rome.
In response to this, the Catholic Church had accepted that he take
communion at the Eucharist, as he did every morning in the large church
at Taizé."[9]
So because Brother Roger accepted certain aspects of Catholic theology, he was granted an "understanding" that allowed him to receive communion despite not being a formal member of the Catholic Church? This is amazing in its novelty, but it is perhaps an example of the ecumenism of mutual understanding envisioned by Cardinal Dulles?
Even if Brother Roger's status was ambiguous, it is good to stop at this point and remind ourselves of what the Code of Canon Law states clearly an unambiguously:
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the
sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone.
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reminds us that Catholics cannot receive communion at Protestant churches, and likewise Protestants cannot receive communion from Catholic priests:
Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from
the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the
Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence
of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that
Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for
the Catholic Church. (CCC 1400)
The only exception the Church admits of is the case of "grave necessity", but note, only if there is evidence that the Christian in grave danger holds the Catholic Faith, at least as regards those sacraments:
When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic
ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing
of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic
Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence
of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the
required dispositions. (CCC 1401)
It is very hard to justify any claim that Brother Roger was in a state of grave necessity when he was receiving communion. More likely than not, Brother Roger's exception to Canon Law and the teaching of the Catechism was allowed an an exercise of the Church's shadowy
ex voce teaching; that is, while the Church has not officially changed its law or teaching on intercommunion with Protestants, as an exercise in support of the new ecumenism, the Church has nevertheless proposed an alternate understanding of ecumenism and communion in low level pronouncements, relaxations of discipline and the allowance of obscure situations like that of Brother Roger for the sake of promoting a concept contrary to Tradition without officially changing the Church's position.
To go back to our original question, is there anything "fishy" about Taize prayer? Should Catholics be involved in Taize programs at the parish level? I do not believe it is advisable. Despite the pronouncements of the popes, at the end of the day, Taize is not a Catholic movement. Inspired by Catholicism? Accepting of certain aspects of Catholicism? On good terms with Catholicism? Sure. It is all those things. But it lacks the one thing necessary - full communion with the Catholic Church, which is the one thing that would make it Catholic, and ironically the one thing it lacks even while it professes to seek it. There is no reason why Catholics need to be involved in this when, as Canon Law states, we should occupying ourselves with programs and prayers that teach the Catholic Faith specifically.
[1]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121229_taize_en.html
[2] ibid.
[3] http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/206302?eng=y
[4] http://www.taize.fr/en_article6718.html
[5] ibid.
[6] ibid.
[7] http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121229_taize_en.html
[8] http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/206302?eng=y
[9] ibid.
