Now listening to : Big Star, "#1 Record/Radio City"
Especially recommended : Track 22, 'September Gurls'
A steady diet of chicken soup and orange juice is not exactly punk, no matter how much black pepper (alot) you put in the soup bowl. I say that (write that) just to contextualize myself as someone with - at least for the moment - a more than punk level of respect for authority and conservatism. Keeping things the same, or at least not radically (in the sense of 'extreme) altering their course. Have I a more than punk level of respect for radical (in the sense of a return to the root) authority? Probably not. That shit's dangerous. Mostly neo-patriarchical.
Approaching theology, the role of theologian, from the pastoral side is different than approaching it from the systematic side - from the 'philosophical' side, as it were, though that's misleading if it implies (and it does) that pastoral care isn't as grounded in philosphy as anything else. 'Pastoral care' means the part played by minister/priest/spiritual guide of any sort in tending to the flock of souls under her/his care. Ratzinger and Kung, in their different ways, both characterize themselves as pastoral thinkers - Ratzinger's flock is traditional where Kung's is modern, which explains why their theologies end up in (such?) different places. The constituency one chooses is a fraught political decision, especially in the catholic context, since catholic - radically - means 'universal'. I think about that alot, about the pointed possibility of it's being impossibly pointless to play to a universe-sized audience. It gives me (such.) sympathy for them both.
Rahner on the other hand, at least from what I remember of the sections on utopian theologianity in 'Trinitat', seems to have been, definitely not unconcerned with the concrete faithful, but also very concerned with the absolute trinity. Which isn't really political at the first level; I mean, obviously, it can get _very_ political, but it's a politics of hermeneutics (Right, what isn't. Shut up.), not really act-upon-able until the first remove. Meaning at a distance, is what I'm saying.
It's sort of like pop songs? About the absent beloved? You can love with more transcendental sweetness across the Great Divide or Trans the Atlantic than you can on an Italian Leather Sofa. Right, right; it's irresponsible to compare across genres (though really, how different are they? Post-Beatles Western white boys, all.), but I'm just making a gesture towards a point, not the point itself. Er?
Right, distance. The theologian and distance. I kind of like it. There's more you can do across a gap than you can if you've got to maintain a grasp on the demonstrated needs of a particular community (and one, moreover, you're taking as indicative of an entire universe). I'm making everything seem awfully simplistic, here, by the way; far more than would be possible if I were - for example - actually citing the people I'm writing about. Funny, (meta)that.