Defining Catholic identity
An interesting start to the bishops’ fall meeting, as Cardinal George delivered a strongly-worded opening address on episcopal authority and confirmed the “open secret” of a kind of Catholic identity project that he is hatching. My take is at PoliticsDaily. The lead:
BALTIMORE — The leader of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States on Monday launched a new effort to rein in Catholic debates and dissidents and to remind the flock that the bishops will be the arbiters of what it means to be a Catholic.
In remarks at the opening of the hierarchy’s annual meeting in Baltimore, Chicago Cardinal Francis George made it clear that after years of repeated questions about the bishops’ credibility, it was time for the bishops to clarify just who can and cannot speak for the church. He also confirmed that he had set up three committees of bishops to develop guidelines for determining what will be considered legitimate Catholic entities.
“Since everything and everyone in Catholic communion is truly inter-related, and the visible nexus of these relations is the bishop, an insistence on complete independence from the bishop renders a person or institution sectarian, less than fully Catholic,” George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, told some 300 of his fellow bishops. “The purpose of our reflections, therefore, is to clarify questions of truth of faith and of accountability or community among all those who claim to be part of the Catholic communion.”
And we move on from there to Ignatius of Antioch.
BTW, Rocco posts a USCCB Facebook page foto of the payoff from the Dolan-Rigali World Series bet, and notes that yours truly–a Mets fan, ouch!–is in the background, emerging too late to catch the lead item of the day. As we used to say at my last paper, “If it’s news, it’s news to us.”
H/T: Grant Gallicho
“Since everything and everyone in Catholic communion is truly inter-related, and the visible nexus of these relations is the bishop, an insistence on complete independence from the bishop renders a person or institution sectarian, less than fully Catholic”
He’s trying to turn back the clock . . . all the way back to the Second Vatican Council (see, e.g. Lumen Gentium 20).
He only has one more year, right? What happens to these committees after he leaves?
Maybe they should appoint a bishop of the Internet. Can there be a virtual diocese? Maybe a personal particular church==a la the military and the Anglicans.
Cathy: Bingo! When you have a problem no one can solve but someone wants taken care of, create a committee and it’ll disappear. The cardinal himself seems quite committed to the project, but the devil is always in the details in such things. No one is sure, for example, how anything the university committee would do would differ from Ex Corde.
Bishop Gaillot, bishop of Partenia, is the self-proclaimed bishop of the cyber-diocese of the internet.
There is also the question of how far these committees can go without transgressing some canon law or other. I don’t know much in this regard, but it seems to me that the laity have some rights when it comes to this sort of stuff. Isn’t that one reason why America Magazine got smacked down a few years ago, while Commonweal remained untouched? Could one imagine a “visitation” of Catholic Worker houses, for instance?
Another observation: Cardinal George seems to be making it hard for us “faithful” to essentially ignore the bishops and practice simple Catholicism–not when he is asking the bishops to play a more visible and forceful role in any group or activity calling itself Catholic.
I particularly liked what Cardinal Francis George had to say about the role of the bishops as per this story in AP (not often one gets to congratulate that source):
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops defended their involvement in the health care debate, saying Monday that church leaders have a duty to the nation and God to raise moral concerns on any issue, including on abortion rights and coverage for the poor.
Chicago Cardinal Francis George, the conference president, said that the prelates must ensure that “issues that are moral questions before they become political remain moral questions when they become political.” Roman Catholic prelates believe that “everyone should be cared for and that no one should be deliberately killed,” he said.
George made the remarks at the start of the conference’s fall meeting in a wide-ranging speech that re-asserted the bishops’ role not only as guardians of the faith, but also as moral guides outside the church.
Years of the clergy sex abuse crisis had eroded the bishops’ moral authority. But George insisted that the church has purged dioceses of abusers and enacted unprecedented safeguards for children, despite claims by victim advocates that more must be done.
“The sinfulness of churchmen cannot be allowed to discredit the truth of Catholic teaching,” he said. He thanked lawmakers “in either political party” who share the bishops’ moral concerns “and govern our country in accordance with them.” *
More leadership like this from the bishops is what is required – we need their leadership a whole lot more than the appointment of committees if the latter are only being established as a means of bishops avoiding what is in fact their proper role.
Nice to see some bishops with backbone. Seems to be spreading.
*Not sure whether link will work so I haven’t posted it. I found story via google news. It’s headed “Bishops assert moral duty in healthcare debate” with a Rachel Zoll byline.
I remember a past interview with JD Crossan in which he seemed to say that religion and politics belong entwined. Here’s a bit of it ….
But instead of the twentieth century building a theology on this realization [that Jesus was "Lord" in the same way Caesar was] – which of course would have been one-hundred percent political and one-hundred percent religious, something capable of pointing to that deep basis where religion and politics coincide – we went off into existential demythologization and it was the last thing the twentieth century needed. We went into a kind of personalized, existentialized individualism when what we needed was the kind of powerful political/religious understanding of Christianity authentic to the first century. I’m not even talking about an application of it. I’m just talking about seeing what was there, seeing why Jesus was crucified, seeing that the Romans got it right. That’s part of what I see happening right now. On the one hand we have – though they are only straws in the wind at the moment, they are big straws in a big wind – a growing insistence on the political and religious implications of Christianity. I’m extremely excited. This is not just talking politics but talking about what Jesus called the kingdom of God, what Paul called the Lordship of Christ, which is simply a way of saying who is in charge of the world. And counterpointed with this I find a Gnosticism that coalesces magnificently with American individualism – inside not outside, religion not politics, spirituality not religion – everything that makes the whole thing Gnostic and safe.
But I don’t agree with Crossan. I was just reading about the UK House of Lords voting to uphold the Waddington amendment to a hate speech bill that would outlaw hateful speech against gays. The amendment allows the C of E to be exempted from the law, and the reason this amendment was upheld in the House of Lords is that the C of E bishops are “Spiritual Lords” …. they vote. I find it disturbing that in the US where we have no official state religion, the US Catholic bishops are so involved in politics that they contribute money to defeat same-sex marriage and directly influence legislation on health care reform. It’s not that I don’t think they should have opinions on issues or speak up about these, but I don’t want to live in a theocracy.
I think that essentially Cardinal George has it basically correct. If you want to know the “position” of the Catholic church on various issues, the Bishops are the ones responsible for speaking to it.
We do not have in the Catholic community, the concept of the consent of the governed. The episcopal, hierarchical structure was supposedly instituted by Christ.
Now, I agree that post-Trent there has been an excessive emphasis on the institutional body of the Church to the exclusion of the mystical body. However,the Church simply is not just a mystical body (as much as I am sympathetic to that idea) otherwise we would all be Quakers.
I understand why he is doing it. However, I think the Church should exercise some restraint in getting into these cultural wars. After all St. Augustine tolerated prostitution on the grounds that making it illegal would cause even more problems. In that sense, Augustine was very libertarian.
But Cardinal George is essentially correct and Bishops should assume their proper responsibility. And as I said, the laity does not have much say in that strictly speaking because the Catholic church isn’t constituted as a monarchy with the Weberian concept of consent of the governed through rational legal means.
Trautman has spoken up again, asking why some segments of the liturgy have been appropriated by Rome as their own responsibility without being submitted to the Bishops for approval (in direct contradiction with Vatican II). George and Serratelli responded icily.
Boy, what a shock they are in for when these new translations are inflicted on the populus Dei! The South African temblor will be nothing to the American earthquake.
David, I hope you got to share the Tastykakes at least!
An awful but expected beginning to the Bishops’ meeting.
Get everyone into line – the media came in for it especially.
Perhaps a copy of John Wilkins article in the current Commonweal should be sent to Cardinal George.
But Commonweal should fall in line -and NCR -and look out S.J.s at America.
Trautman gets slapped down.
All of this, rather disingenuously, in the name of love by pushing “governance..”
Obviously it’s love that doesn’t listen and just wants to tell.
On sex abuse, the Cardinal can pat he and his fellows on the back, but already SNAP is criticizing him for his latest abusive priest handling and arguing (I think correctly) that the problem is not no governance, bu tthe wrong kind of governance under his leadership.
Unfortunately, i expect more bad news from Baltimore as the proceedings unfold.
This came up recently on the Future “Commonweal” Catholics”? thread, where it was noted that St Thomas Aquinas was condemned by his bishop. If you want the Catholic position on an issue, should we look to Aquinas or to that bishop of Paris?
Bishops defining Catholic identity will always have to be coupled with the episcopal responsibility for unity. What is true is the standard for some Catholic teaching; bishops will have to tread carefully if they do not have some extraordinary source for discerning the truth. It is their responsibility to listen to those who have expertise, something that is very difficult in highly charged political situations.
If they define Catholicism in a way that looks irrational, that looks like dictatorship rather than description, laity will continue to vote with their feet. They will be masters of all they can see, but there will not be much they can see.
Our bishops in Ireland were never as arrogant as the bishops of the Superpower. Yet what little arrogance they may have harbored met a terrific Waterloo. The US bishops are tilting full speed ahead to a similar humiliation.
Jerry Filteau’s NCR story fills out what Joseph O’Leary is referring to:
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/george-questions-role-independent-catholic-media
Ko-Ko:
There’s the radical professor, and the others of her kind,
And the tenured atheist – I’ve got him on the list!
And the bloggers who post articles that show us in poor light,
They never would be missed — they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All parties we don’t like, and all religions but his own;
And the writer from the magazine, who dares to criticize,
And independent Jesuits who editorialize,
And that singular anomaly, the full-time liturgist —
I don’t think she’d be missed — I’m sure she’d not he missed!
Chorus:
He’s got her on the list — he’s got her on the list;
And I don’t think she’ll be missed — I’m sure she’ll not be missed!
“Trautman asked, “How does that square with” the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, which plainly says that vernacular translations of the Latin liturgical texts are the responsibility of the local bishops’ conferences.
“He cited Paragraph 36.4 of the constitution, which says, “Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority,” as a conciliar mandate that, in his view, says no Vatican agency can usurp the role of the local bishops’ conference in vetting and approving such liturgical texts.”
I believe that Liturgiam Authenticam states that the Vatican retains the authority to arrogate translation tasks to itself in at least some instances, although I don’t have time to search out chapter and verse right now. How that squares with what Bishop Trautman cites from Sacrasanctum Concilium, I can’t imagine.
At any rate, it’s a rather disconcerting development. Is this the case for the antiphons for all English-speaking conferences, or are the Americans being made an example of?
Jim
Very good, but watch our for our enforcer of the unrhymed, the our own General Grant.
Not to mention the our beloved Agricola, who may notice that Ko-Ko is not far from Cuckoo.
I’m not sure what to think about these committees – I’d like to understand more about what they are actually supposed to be doing. As someone already mentioned, the first thing the comes to mind would be the equivalent of a mandatum being issued to – or withheld from – a theology professor. But perhaps it won’t be that juridical. (Or perhaps it will – we’ll have to see what develops).
I do think that the church today is in need of some sustained reflection and engagement on the nature of communion. If that is an outcome of the formation of these committees, then perhaps it will turn out to be a positive thng for the church.
Btw, the text of the cardinal’s opening address is available on the USCCB web site. It’s a short read, with nothing about committees, but some good words about love and dialogue.
http://www.usccb.org/meetings/2009Fall/president_address.shtml
It’s amazing how this little bits of wisdom do not die. Pick 2, any 2, folks:
“Vigorous minds will not suffer compulsion. To exercise compulsion is typical of tyrants; to suffer it, typical of asses.”
Erasmus
“The problem of clericalism is composed of several problems. It is the problem of a caste that arrogates to itself undue authority, that makes unwarranted claims to wisdom, even to having a monopoly on understanding the mind of God. The consequence is the great weakening of the Church by denigrating or excluding the many gifts of the Spirit present in the people who are the Church. The problem of clericalism arises when “the church” acts in indifference, or even contempt, toward the people who are the Church.”
Richard J. Neuhaus, June 1989.
“We’ll not get leadership from the clergy. They only ordain people who are celibate and pious and can’t lead anything. We could really use some bishops who embody the tradition of Catholicism. That could be a beginning.”
Dutch theologian, Eric Borgman
Jim:
“If they define Catholicism in a way that looks irrational, that looks like dictatorship rather than description, laity will continue to vote with their feet. They will be masters of all they can see, but there will not be much they can see.”
Time will tell my friend, time will tell, I still think Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor is the most brilliant exposition written (with application to political messianism as well).
But I think we are veering off topic. At issue isn’t translations, at issues is a much more fundamental question; namely the constitution of the Church. Is or is not the hierarchical (i.e. “sacred rule”) constitution of the Church divinely mandated? Is Lumen Gentium theologically correct? Can it withstand a rigorous historical critique? Every Catholic theologian must answer that question and live with the consequences of their reply either silently or publicly
There is scant evidence that Jesus set up a hierarchy. He did, however, say loads about leadership. In every instance it is always washing the feet of the servants of God. Those who want to be the greatest should be as the least. If only the popes observed their motto “Servant of the servants of the Lord.” If the bishops showed they could serve rather than dominate they would have little trouble exercsizing leadership.
Poor George. As Mark brings out above he wants us to ignore the bishops but obey them completely. The ostracism of Trautman speaks volumes and bespeaks a militarism that shows that restorationism is on his mind rather than service.
On the grassroots level people have the lowest respect for bishops ever. Perhaps the liturgy will be the last straw. On the whole the bishops cannot get up off the ground they have descended to. They speak with forked tongue indeed. They complain that no one gives them a break, that they should be ignored and that they should be obeyed.
Sadly, they are a sorry lot.
George,
I am glad you agree with me. The constitution expressed in Lumen Gentium should be the starting point for any episcopal attempt to define Catholicism:
“For the nurturing and constant growth of the People of God, Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body. For those ministers, who are endowed with sacred power, serve their brethren, so that all who are of the People of God, and therefore enjoy a true Christian dignity, working toward a common goal freely and in an orderly way, may arrive at salvation.”
I am a little puzzled by the questions you ask in your last paragraph:
Is or is not the hierarchical (i.e. “sacred rule”) constitution of the Church divinely mandated? Is Lumen Gentium theologically correct? Can it withstand a rigorous historical critique? Every Catholic theologian must answer that question and live with the consequences of their reply either silently or publicly.
Since I mentioned them in my post, how do you think Aquinas would have answered these questions, in the midst of his discussions with the Bishop of Paris? Is Truth the foundation of the Church, and so of the hierarchy? Does the hierarchy have an obligation to nurture and grow the People of God? How well did Aquinas’ bishop fulfill that obligation?
Jim:
That is a good argument. I am reminded of a statement from George Tyrrell for some research I did a while back:
“History shows us that all the substantial advance has been the work not of officials, but of individuals, almost in opposition to officials; not of the system, but of those who have to some extent corrected and modified the system. The great teachers of the Church have been the Fathers who, though often Bishops, were not as a class members of the Ecclesia Docens. Except St. Augustine, no teacher has taught the Western Church more than St. Thomas Aquinas -not a member of its official teaching staff. To-day the beliefs of the faithful are de facto determined far more by unofficial individuals and by schools of theology than by the episcopate”
Now I am not overly congenial to Thomas and I haven’t seen the Bishops’ condemnation of some points and he may have been on to something. Nonetheless the larger point is that certainly the laity, monks and priests have served as teachers for the Church is certainly part of the tradition of the Church since the beginning.
However, in our technological, bureaucratic age, if the Church is going to be a voice it needs to be a fairly clear one. It seems to be prudent, if nothing else, to permit the Bishop’s to be that voice. Now I certainly think there will be both conservatives and liberals who will say of the Church, “Mater si, magister non”, but following the democratic model, I see no reason why the Bishop’s should not be that voice. The only reform I think that would be helpful is if the laity voted for Bishops as they once did.
George, I agree that the bishop’s should be the ones who speak for the Church. I am not sure see why that should be any different now than before, except for the dissolution of geographical boundaries that used to limit authority.
Granting that, I think there is a profound humility required to do that well. There are some things that are true regardless of what a bishop says or thinks about them. The earth is not the center of the universe, no matter how forcefully a bishop pushes the idea and demands adherence; a bishop who defines the Church on the basis of that idea is not doing his job.
As Cardinal George said when he talked about this, the bishop’s job is to promote unity. That means an openness to truth that might be found in those with whom he disagrees. That is a constraint God imposes on the power of a bishop to monitor Catholic identity. That constraint mimics democracy in some ways, since it allows a greater voice to non-bishops, but it has to be a fundamental principle of any organization that is dedicated to truth under any governance.
There are some other problems in proposals on Catholic identity (not the least of which is the fuzziness of boundaries in LG), but asking bishops to defer to the movement of the Holy Spirit, to truth, does not seem controversial to me.
A quick note on leadership: the latest post at Msgr. Harry Byrne’s Archangel blog talsk about leadership skills cribbing from the NYT Business sections discussion of that point in general -and the good Msgr. finds it sorely lacking in our hierarchy.
Note particularly the idea of promoting unity.
The death knell to the National Pastoral life Cenetr, despite the uisual PR, signals how bad the lack of unity is and how impossible to accheive it also is under the current klind of (putative) USCCB leadership.