Benedict Circles the Wagons
CNS reports on the ad limina visit of the bishops of England and Wales. Among other things, the Pope strongly defended the right of Catholic prelates “to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society.”
But there is only ONE Catholic voice. Money quote: “To bring a coherent, convincing message to the people, the church must ensure the Catholic community speaks with one voice, he added. In a culture that encourages the expression of a wide variety of opinions, the pope said, ‘it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.’”
The catch is, our tradition has been enlivened time and time again by dissenters who voiced positions in tension with that of current magisterial teaching. I’m not referring to mere cranks, but informed and faithful dissent which serves to call the Church to reexamine itself on matters of importance.
Dismissing all dissent within the Church as immature and unbalanced hardly contributes to our reputation as a tradition of fearless inquiry. Rather, we are seen as people who think in mindless lockstep. Why should people outside the Church engage in dialogue with a magisterium which disallows dialogue and respectful disagreement internally?
HT: Tony LoPresti
Continuing the pattern of skipping over or ignorinig valuable initiatives and documents of the Second Vatican Council:
- the role of authority – link: http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm
“When the hierarchy is faced by a conflict of opinions in the church, it does not always succeed in achieving a perfectly adequate response. Broadly speaking, two kinds of mistake are possible – excessive permissiveness and excessive rigidity. It is hard to know which of the two errors has done more harm.”
“We must recognize, therefore, that there can be such a thing in the church as mutable or reformable teaching. The element of mutability comes from the fact that such teaching seeks to mediate between the abiding truth of the gospel and the socio-cultural situation at a given time and place.”
“Did Vatican II teach the legitimacy of dissent from noninfallible teaching? It did so implicitly by its action, we may say, but not explicitly by its words. The theological commission responsible for paragraph 25 of the Constitution of the Church refused to make any statement, one way or the other, about dissent.”
“A step beyond the council was taken by the German bishops in a pastoral letter of September 22, 1967, which has been quoted on several occasions by Karl Rahner. This letter recognized that in its effort to apply the gospel to the changing situations of life, the church is obliged to give instructions that have a certain provisionality about them. These instructions, though binding to a certain degree, are subject to error. According to the bishops, dissent may be legitimate provided that three conditions are observed. (1) One must have striven seriously to attach positive value to the teaching in question and to appropriate it personally. (2) One must seriously ponder whether one has the theological expertise to disagree responsibly with ecclesiastical authority. (3) One must examine one’s conscience for possible conceit, presumptuousness, or selfishness. Similar principles for conscientious dissent had already been laid down by John Henry Newman in the splendid chapter on Conscience in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1874).”
“There is always a temptation for church authorities to try to use their power to stamp out dissent. The effort is rarely successful, because dissent simply seeks another forum, where it may become even more virulent. To the extent that the suppression is successful, it may also do harm. It inhibits good theology from performing its critical task, and it is detrimental to the atmosphere of freedom in the church. The acceptance of true doctrine should not be a matter of blind conformity, as though truth could be imposed by decree. The church, as a society that respects the freedom of the human conscience, must avoid procedures that savor of intellectual tyranny.
Where dissent is kept within the bounds I have indicated, it is not fatal to the church as a community of faith and witness. If it does occur, it will be limited, reluctant, and respectful.”
I will not even get into what Vatican II said about collegiality and bishops’ conferences compared to the over-centralization of power and authority that we have in Rome today.
Well, Benedict is a brilliant man–he knows that church teaching developed in part on issues such as usury and religious freedom by the laity sitting loosely with –ignoring — the teaching as it was. Noonan’s technical book on usury is very helpful here.
So he could be saying: 1) Doctrinally, no more development; the Catholic cake is now completely baked or 2) strategically, the only way we’re going to get anywhere in England is by having a united front. I think the former is unlikely–he’s defended the importance of dissent theologically.
So I think this is a strategic move. But the trouble is, you can’t enforce a united front anymore–and my guess is that ticked off dissed “dissenting” Catholics are going to take it out on the church politically.
What did you expect the pope to say, Lisa? That he welcomes dissent? What sane leader of such a far-flung institution would say such a thing in public? Besides, we all know that this is not Benedict’s style. Benedict has to say these kinds of things. It’s part of his job. But he’s probably seasoned enough to know that statements like these won’t stop dissent. In fact, it just may encourage it.
There will always be dissent in the church.
It will always be in opposition to the hierarchy. (Isn’t that the very definition of dissent?)
And somehow, the dissent that is valid and “mature” will find its way (belatedly, most likely) into the church.
It’s all a part of the dance that hierarchs and theologians have been doing for centuries.
Don’t you think, though, that we can/should distinguish between internal conversations – for which I am in favor of open, free and respectful dialogue – and external conversations, in which it is appropriate that the church have the equivalent of its accedited ambassador speak on its behalf?
Benedict is brilliant in certain ways in his field.
But his view is extremely Eurocentric and clericalistic and tends to fob off problems on “secularism” and not on hias own internal group who he appartently deeply relies on.
His visit to England should be interesting in view of the whole irish Church mess and the invitation to be an ordinariate to the Anglicans.
What did I expect?
From Benedict, this was par for the course -from what I think Church leadership should do is another matter.
Yes. And I suppose in England that’s the Archbishop of Westminster.
But here’s the problem. Suppose most people in England think clinics treating AIDS victims should pass out condoms, and that they want to require that to be done by facilities receiving govt. funds. Say only a tiny minority of people –and a tiny minority of actual Catholics –oppose that requirement on moral grounds. But it is the official position of the Church. Should Church leaders be able to go into negotiations suggesting that their entire population is behind them on this–or should they have to go with the numbers they have?
Dissenting Catholics are still fully vested as citizens–the Church doesn’t cast their votes or negotiate on their behalf. So I don’t get how this approach is going to help the Vatican much. They might say. . .”Well even if i disagree, it’s good that the church has its autonomy. . . ” But people might be less inclined to say that about an organization that is trying to impede them from expressing their views.
I was at a meeting once and a prominent conservative Catholic was quite annoyed with me because I articulated –in the presence of outsiders–non-Catholics –some of the Catholic arguments against Humanae Vitae, etc. I was told that these debates were “internal Catholic debates” a united front should be presented to outsiders. But why? If the sphere of discussion is law and policy in a secular state, there is no special standing for “orthodoxy.”
Cathleen – the passage of the House health care bill in the US is probably a non-hypothetical example of what you’re trying to illustrate. The bishops lobbied effectively to pass a bill that is unpopular and whose abortion restrictions are probably also unpopular.
You say “here’s the problem”, but why is it a problem?
On one level, the church isn’t primarily a political organization, and so its engagement with the legislature, or the media, or other churches, or whatever is the pertinent “element of society” being engaged, isn’t only on the purely practical level of politics.
On another level, perhaps even the loyal minority who do follow their bishops’ lead on political matters are numerous enough that politicians and editors sit up and take notice.
Also, arguably the Pope and bishops continue to possess a moral authority, even post-abuse-scandals, that reverberates beyond the formal boundaries of the church. Thus we see non-Catholics being delirious with joy at papal appearances, and Evangelicals going nuts at the prospect of President Obama speaking at Notre Dame.
But speaking politically, presumably every leader inside and outside the church knows that most Catholics don’t vote as Catholics – they vote as some other demographic profile – suburban women, or Hispanics, or union members, or some such.
I think the Bishops were extremely political in their dealings on health care. And I didn’t use that on purpose because there were a lot of prudential judgments –and legal judgments –involved that to my mind were quite questionable.
The bishops’ conference has no special expertise, say, on a) what FOCA will do legally; and b) on its likelihood of passing. But they whipped up the American Catholic population with their judgments about those two issues. I don’t see them as entitled to any deference whatsoever on these two issues. And one could disagree with them about these two issues–and about the merits of Stupak v. Nelson–without disagreeing about the underlying issue of abortion.
I picked the condoms issue –you could pick birth control –because it’s more clearly moral dissent, rather than disagreement about a political issue.
Is it relevant–for third parties evaluating the Church’s moral authority–that it can’t convince its own membership of the truth of certain propositions. You present it as if Catholics are ignoring the tradition and voting other forms of self-interest. On some hot button issues, I think it’s that people think the Church is wrong–and that the course of action they propose is harmful. And so they feel a responsibility to not let the Church hurt people–with government money.
Sex ed–abstinence only education would be another example.
.
If dissent is of such great value –
I dissent from your support for dissent.
question: “Why should people outside the Church engage in dialogue with a magisterium which disallows dialogue and respectful disagreement internally?”
answer: Because that Magisterium recognizes the one Truth of Love.
So, if Pope Benedict is “a brilliant man” who is making a “strategic move”, and if he’s “seasoned enough to know that statements like these won’t stop dissent. In fact, it just may encourage it.” then … it must be that he’s strategically trying to stir dissent!
I wonder. . . .who writes the Pope’s speeches. . . . Does he vet them before he reads them. .. How does this all work? Anyone know?
I’d say the speech exactly reflects Benedict’s summary way with moral and legal issues. He is not a moral theologian.
Catherine Keveny neatly indicates that what Benedict calls “dissent” is what most people call “common sense”. An old Canute declaring war on common sense will impress only his sycophants, who may have to choose whether to drown themselves with him or to negotiate their survival for another day.
“Suppose most people in England think clinics treating AIDS victims should pass out condoms, and that they want to require that to be done by facilities receiving govt. funds.” Sure, that’s common sense. What? Dissent, you say? Oh, you must be one of those weirdo groups — Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons or Catholics.
Sorry. Catherine Kaveny I mean.
Does Benedict have ANY intelligent supporters? Are there any leading Catholic thinkers among his loyalists? He has alienated intelligent people by his refusal of the culture of discussion and debate and by the stilted, slanted, narrowly ideological and eurocentric way he talks of Reason.
If I may add one other consideration – Vat II’s concept of collegiality and definition of church/authority – bishops serve the people of God in unity with Rome; not a direct top heavy hierarchy.
This collegiality sought to direct bishops’ and conferences to read the signs of the times in their regions, areas and respond. It is very possible that a specific conference of bishops for good reason may apply practical actions to a specific issue in their region that Rome does not need to rule on; does not need to enforce one uniformity or interpretation. Collegiality supports diversity; use of specific moral theology as a tool; so, when Rome (B16) try to legislate how a specific conference is to handle an issue, Rome undercuts both collegiality and subsidiarity.
Think about some of the recent blogs – needle exchange might be handled differently in parts of the world; same with condoms; even the approach to abortion may vary.
B16′s approach seems to underline uniformity and devalue unity. He seems to say – either/or rather than both/and.
“He is not a moral theologian.” Hmmm? That would mean he is an immoral theologian. No doubt, Pope Benedict is a moral theologian since he is for Christ and not against Him. He values unity with Christ.
Claire:
I don’t think he’s actually trying to stir up dissent. I think he really doesn’t like disagreement. But it also seems to me that he is well aware of the way things work. He knows he has to stand up against dissenters, and he knows that dissent will continue. You don’t get this high in any political organization without facing up to some of these realities.
Will he try to crush dissent? Maybe, in some quarters and on some topics. Does he really think that statements like this one will actually halt it? I find that very hard to believe.
“What did you expect the pope to say, Lisa? That he welcomes dissent?” Well, in a way, yes. Deep in our tradition is a conviction that right reason does not lead us away from God. Good reasoning is likely to lead us to Truth–slowly, perhaps with errors along the way, but it will lead us there. Likewise, that people of good will can reason together and together achieve something like better clarity on difficult matters. This won’t help us in matters that are purely supernatural or unique–we cannot reason our way to the incarnation. But on moral matters, right reason does work. Or so our tradition holds. That’s why we can take our moral teachings into the world outside the Church and say “see–this is helpful to human flourishing. Let me show you how…” In other words, we can talk Natural Law.
Let’s say Benedict’s tack here is strategic–wanting to present a united front. In fact, though, it’s increasingly widely known that the “united front” is achieved by silencing or ridiculing (as Kennedy was attacked by his own bishop,) those who do not either agree or remain silent in the face of magisterial teachings they disagree with. That’s not a stance that respects right reason–it’s a stance that says that power is everything. Unfortunately for those who take such a stance, more and more people are voting with their feet, adding to the growing ranks of the “formerly Catholic.” Short of that, people just ignore the magisterium, and eventually governments come to realize that ignoring the bishops no longer translates into trouble with Catholic voters, who also aren’t listening to them.
Rahner said that the Christian of the future will be a mystic or be nothing at all. While I do not agree with every aspect of Rahner, I think his comment on the character of contemporary Christianity exactly on target.
We can learn a lot from the Orthodox in terms of their approach to Christianity, worship and experience. It is not as “left-brained” as the Latin church and seems to have a greater interior appeal.
The direction Benedict is moving in is bass- ackwards. He is trying to move outside in, rather than inside out.
I think that much of what Pope Benedict says about liturgy is correct, we must admit some validity in his critique particularly in terms of the lack of space for silence, liturgy as performance rather than experience, etc. Many of his reflections on Patristic teachers are interesting and demonstrate effective ressourcement. However, he seems to have a tin ear (and worse and inappropriate authoritarian, clerical siege mentality) when it comes to other aspects of church governance.
I think that overt attempts to circle the wagons, as Lisa correctly characterizes his approach, is going to be ultimately ineffective and my even be counter-productive as a long term strategy.
Lisa, there is a difference between questioning in order that one may come to a fuller understanding of a truth, and dissention, denying a truth is true.
The Pope also spoke out against the UK Equality Bill which would have enforced the already existing laws protecting LGBT people from non-religious job discrimination. There’s a good wrap-up of the issue at Thinking Anglicans – Pope comments on Equality Bill
Interesting that B16 mentioned Newman in his speech against dissent ….
Even John Henry Newman, often cited as the greatest Catholic figure of the 19th century, took a significant dissenting stance and suffered the consequences ….. Newman drew some shocking conclusions that have been reverberating in the church ever since: that there is in the body of the faithful (the laity) an “instinct” for the truth, that this “sense of the faithful” must never be ignored or taken for granted by the church’s official teachers, that authentic church teaching therefore comes about through a kind of “conspiracy” or cooperative enterprise on the part of both laity and hierarchy, and finally that certain lapses (or “suspensions”) can occur when one side or the other of this living body temporarily ceases to function …..Newman would not recant; thus charges were brought against him before the Vatican’s Office of Propaganda by several English bishops, and a protracted investigation got underway. For the next six years Newman lived under a cloud, his creativity seriously impeded ….
– Catholic dissent — When wrong turns out to be right, US Catholic
Words of wisdom for further pondering:
“Disagreement can only be meaningful when it takes place within a framework of agreement. One cannot really feel apart unless at some level one still feels joined. Dissent is possible only when it acknowledges accountability to something outside itself – to a teaching, an authority, a tradition, a history, a people, a revelation. Distinguishing between responsible and irresponsible dissent, between dissent in the service of communion and dissent destructive of it, is less than we often suppose a matter of intellectual propositions, and more often a matter of conduct, of attitude, of affection, and of heart.”
Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, Dissent & Communion (article), Commonweal (75th Anniversary Issue), 11/18/94.
“How many of us know priests and lay people, active in parishes and dioceses, who compromise their core beliefs so as to carry on the good work they are doing within church structures? Whether the issue is eucharistic inclusivity, option for the poor, a thinking laity, married clergy, women’s ordination, homosexuality, contraception, our Church fosters a culture of keeping quiet so as to keep going. Sometimes the pressure from above is overt, but we are all subject to that subtlest form of institutional intimidation which everyone registers without it having to be articulated. We watch the few who persist in standing against it being marginalised or pushed out altogether; their whole lives can be taken apart. Many, both young and lifelong churchgoers, can no longer accept it and are walking away. Meanwhile those who slip into capitulating to it progressively deform their spiritual integrity. Of course, the Protestant tradition and secular society have long picked up the tenor of hypocrisy about Catholicism. After Vatican II, though, many of us felt we were on the way to being freed from it. But the volume now seems to be ratcheting up again. How can we commit to the Church we love without dancing to this particular tune?”
Letter in The Tablet, 3 January 2009
Fr. O’Leary,
They say the third time is a charm. How about Cathleen Kaveny?
A couple of observations:
One is that a certain V2 peritus named Joseph Ratzinger was no small-time dissenter in his day–though he would now cast his views as simply representing the fuller truth, a rationale no doubt many “dissenters” would use. Then there is the definition of “dissent”–an argument could be made that Ratzinger as pope is dissenting from the actions and aims of the Vatican 2 Fathers. (Treu or not, I’m just sayin’…) So who’s a dissenter and who represents the company line? (Who is right, or holds the Truth, is another argument.) It is likely the one highest in the pyramid. When Ratzinger was a mere cardinal he had many public debates with his fellow cardinals. Alas, they are the dissenters now, or have changed their tune, wisely. So it goes.
Two, I think Mark Jameson’s ascription of motives is a bit Machiavellian, as if B16 were a “panzerpapst.” Still, there is a kind of ideological/political rationale behind the appeal to unity (similar to that which Karol Wojtyla preferred given his background under communism). Such an appeal to unity of course encourages charges of hypocrisy and undermines the witness of the church because obviosuly not everyone believes the same thing on every point, so it is impossible to tell who’s lying or mentally reserving. A church more interested in presenting a united front does not present a credible witness for the truth or the gospel, to outsiders. And since internal dissent or dialogue are not permitted, it is difficult to argue that these questions get hashed out where the kids don’t have to see them.
According to Catholic news agency: After criticism from national religious leaders and Pope Benedict XVI, The British Government has retreated from plans to implement an Equality Bill many saw as oppressive of religious freedom.
David G., When in doubt, you could always refer to your Catechism, that way, while seeking Truth, you will avoid confusion.:-)
To order someone to agree when s/he does not agree is to order someone to lie. Obviously, the Pope’s brilliant mind no longer works properly. This is frightening.
On a related front, Bill Lindsey takes apart John Allen on the new breed of young evangelical Catholics: http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2010/02/response-to-john-allen-re-evangelical.html#more
‘With regard to younger Catholics, this trend to “evangelical Catholicism” is undeniably there, Mr. Allen proposes, because it’s arising from the ground up. It’s not being imposed from the top. It’s an expression of a hunger for a “thick” sense of Catholic identity arising among Catholic young people today without prompting from the top…
‘In my view, it’s inaccurate if not disingenuous to say that the “thick” Catholicism, the reassertion of Catholic identity with a pronounced public presence, now manifesting itself among a select group of young Catholics worldwide is “basically unsolicited by anyone in authority.”
‘Pope John Paul II instituted the lavish, expensive, circus-like World Youth Day annual events (which Benedict has continued) precisely to solicit this “evangelical-cum-public” reassertion of Catholicism among Catholic youth. John Paul II was an adroit actor who knew full well that the force of his personality could carry the day at such events, and that, through his charismatic appeal to Catholic youth, he could shape the consciousness of an entire generation of those youth.
‘And to his credit, he was very successful at reaching a certain slice of Catholic youth—precisely those who now represent the growing edge of what John Allen calls “evangelical Catholicism” among younger Catholics. The top-down, well-planned strategy of soliciting that kind of Catholicism among younger Catholics has been successful, one may well conclude, if one disregards the much more significant proportion of younger Catholics who are quickly distancing themselves from the church because they do not buy into “evangelical” Catholicism. (But how can one ever call a pastoral strategy successful in a catholic context when it shrugs its shoulders at the disappearance of large numbers of people from the midst of the community?)’
“To order someone to agree when s/he does not agree is to order someone to lie.”
This is not true if one professes to believe in the One. Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, to begin with.
Leaving personalities aside, the structural problem is the ongoing existence of the divine right monarchy as the governing mechanism of the Church. It is grossly unrepresentative, lacks checks and balances, deadens the global and national voice of the bishops, excludes the “sense of the faithful,” is obsessed with obedience and secrecy, conflates doctrine with papal opinion, suffocates the intellectual life of the church, and is doing a bang-up job of sabotaging the Church from within.
I think it’s important to see this not as a conservative vs. progressive issue, like it’s a matter of some arbitrary preference. This is a moral issue for which we all bear responsibility.
What do you mean, we all bear responsibility?
If it’s a question of conservative or progressive preference, then it’s not a question of justice. If it’s a question of justice, which I think it is, then we have the same obligation to do something about it as we would any injustice.
Paul VI said that the Church is both perfect and imperfect at the same time. We also talk about continuity in discontinuity and discontinuity in continuity. Bendedict may have ruffled Anglican leadership but at the same time he did establish that there are other ways to worship and that the liturgy is not inflexible. He gives one Protestant communion and says we should deny others. John Paul II was left on social justice and medieval with collegiality.
We really have to take the Vatican with a grain of salt.
Nancy said @ 11:05 PM: ” This is not true (-“To order someone to agree when s/he does not agree is to order someone to lie.”-) if one professes to believe in the One. Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, to begin with.”
Newman said:
” Every consideration, the fullest time should be given to those who have to make up their minds to hold an article of faith which is new to them. To take up at once such an article may be the act of a vigorous faith; but it may also be the act of a man who will believe anything because he believes nothing, and is ready to profess whatever his ecclesiastical, that is, his political party requires of him. There are too many high ecclesiastics who think that to believe is as easy as to obey – that is, they talk as if they did not know what an act of faith is. One who hesitates may have more of the real spirit of faith than one who swallows … Our theological philosophers are like the old nurses who wrap the unhappy infant in swaddling bands or boards – put a lot of blankets over him – as if he were not healthy enough to bear wind and water in due measures. They move in a groove, and will not tolerate anyone who does not move in the same … You cannot make men believe by force and repression … A Catholic is kept from skepticism, not by any external prohibition, but by admiration, trust and love. While he admires, trusts, and loves our Lord and His Church, those feelings prohibit him from doubt; they guard and protect his faith; the real prohibition is from within. But suppose those feelings go; suppose he ceases to have admiration, trust, and love, of our Lord and His Church; in that case, the external prohibition will not suffice to keep him from doubting, if he be of an argumentative turn.”
J. H. Newman, Grammar of Assent.
Nancy –
How can being a Catholic stop a lie from being g a sin?
(I find what you and the Pope are saying to be scandalous if you really mean it. And if you don’t mean it it is another lie.)
Nice to hear some of the real Newman, who is far from the brainless dogmatizing puppet his idolators have made of him. The right are claiming Newman as their own, making him over in their own image. But if we some day go back and read the Essay on Development, the Grammar of Assent, and On Consulting the Faithful, it may be possible to save him from them.
Father O’Leary,
Fine reading suggestions as we prepare for Newman’s beatification (dissent anyone?)– to which may be profitably added his “Apologia” and the “Biglietto Speech.”
Avery Dulles, a life-long student of Newman, has some considerations on dissent in his “Craft of Theology.”
That long quote from Newman is not from the “Grammar of Assent” but from a letter that he wrote shortly after Vatican I in which he complained at the way I. Doellinger was being treated by his bishop because he refused to declare his agreement with the definition of papal infallibility.
Three things: It surely is the case that on crucial issues it is important for any group to have a united front if they want to have a real impact; e.g., NAACP, NARAL. Or think of what it meant for the Churches in Germany not to show one in the face of Nazism.
It may be that Benedict is thinking of the particular idea of dissent that he concocted in a document of the CDF on the possibility of disagreeing with magisterial teaching. Dissent for him meant a public and confrontational act–you know, holding press conferences, telling people they could dissent from Church teachings, etc.
On moral matters, the closer one comes to the concrete and the practical the greater the possibility of error, and this is true of the magisterium as well. Here is what Pope John the Good had to say about it:
“Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory.
“In their economic and social activities, Catholics often come into contact with others who do not share their view of life. In such circumstances, they must, of course, bear themselves as Catholics and do nothing to compromise religion and morality. Yet at the same time they should show themselves animated by a spirit of understanding and unselfishness, ready to cooperate loyally in achieving objects which are good in themselves, or can be turned to good. Needless to say, when the hierarchy has made a decision on any point Catholics are bound to obey their directives. The Church has the right and obligation not merely to guard ethical and religious principles, but also to declare its authoritative judgment in the matter of putting these principles into practice” (Mater et magistra, 238-39)
He also said: “Beware of misunderstandings: they arise, challenge each other, and come to blows. We must be our guard against them; if they cannot be avoided, at least let us not try to cultivate them, or allow them to be exaggerated in our imagination. Let us try, unashamedly, to be the first to explain them away, to put things right once more, to disentangle them, and to keep ourselves free from any feeling of resentment.
“Even among cultured and spiritual people there may be a variety of opinions and views in matters open to discussion. This does not harm to charity and peace as long as we preserve moderation or manner and harmongy of minds” (Prayers and Devotions, 139).
“if they want to have a real impact”? That sounds like a politician or strategist speaking. But for us it’s not really an argument since the end does not justify the means, does it?
Lisa: Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about right reason and the quest for truth, especially on moral matters. And I think that, if you hold his feet to the fire, Benedict would agree with you as well. But that’s all in the abstract, in an ideal world where everyone is working out of pure motives and the whole church is one big happy family–which has never been the case.
Perhaps it’s world-weariness on my part, but I’ve seen enough of the way the church works to know that some of our most deeply held dreams and aspirations for it will never come to pass, whether because of small-minded leaders or perceived political exigencies. We may get a John XXIII every now and again, but every time one shows up, he will enjoy his fifteen minutes of fame and then, once he’s gone, be reimagined by the guardians of the status quo. This is why most renewal in the church happens outside of the institutional church–think of St. Francis, St. Ignatius of Loyola, the early Charismatic Renewal, and Taizé.
And yet, for all my world-weariness, I love the church and could never imagine leaving it. I know that the church is more than its politics and its power plays. And I know that the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural heritage of Catholicism is so rich that it can’t possibly be snuffed out by apparatchiks, no matter how highly placed they are.
David Gibson: Machiavellian? Yes, probably. But again, it’s the way things get done–at least in the pope’s eyes.
Ann, you find it scandalous that those who profess to be Catholic profess that they recognize The Truth, Christ, The Son of the Living God?
Nancy, I think that Ann finds it scandalous that Pope Benedict says that “the church must ensure the Catholic community speaks with one voice” on political matters that have a moral dimension. (We think that he was alluding to the proposed equality laws in Great Britain).
Pope Benedict was saying that in regards to Faith and Morals, the Catholic Church must speak in one voice. Great Britain, through the proposed, so called “equality” laws, tried to politicize, that which is a matter of morality, to begin with.
Catholics over time could speak with one voice on important matters if something like the following scenario were in place in the Church, as opposed to the claiming of the Catholic voice by one man. From John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, 1902, (Pg 204-5):
“Perhaps a local teacher, or a doctor in some local school, hazards a proposition, and a controversy ensues. It smolders or burns in one place, no one imposing; Rome simply lets it alone. Then it comes before a Bishop; or some priest, or some professor in some other seat of learning takes it up; and then there is a second stage of it. Then it comes before a University, and it may be condemned by the theological faculty. So the controversy proceeds year after year, and Rome is still silent. An appeal perhaps is next made to a seat of authority inferior to Rome; and then at last after a long while it comes before the supreme power. Meanwhile, the question has been ventilated and turned over and over again, and viewed on every side of it, and authority is called upon to pronounce a decision, which has already been arrived at by reason. But even then, perhaps the supreme authority hesitates to do so, and nothing is determined on the point for years; or so generally and vaguely, that the whole controversy has to be gone through again, before it is ultimately determined. It is manifest how a mode of proceeding, such as this, tends not only to the liberty but to the courage, of the individual theologian or controversialist. Many a man has ideas, which he hopes are true, and useful for his day; but he is not confident about them, and wishes to have them discussed. He is willing or rather would be thankful, to give them up, if they can be proved to be erroneous or dangerous, and by means of controversy he obtains his end. He is answered, and he yields, or on the contrary he finds that he is considered safe. he would not dare to do this, if he knew an authority, which was supreme and final, was watching every word he said, and made signs of assent or dissent to each sentence, as he uttered it. Then indeed he would be fighting, as the Persian soldiers, under the lash, and the freedom of his intellect might truly said to be beaten out of him.”
If the scenario that Newman describes in the above post were actually followed, if the Catholic voice actually reflected a true sense of the faithful, including laity, religious and bishops, then I think “Church teaching” would be different on birth control, celibacy, women’s ordination, gays, etc. The divisive issues in the Church are divisive in large part exactly because “Church teaching” was composed without a true sense of the faithful.
Supporters of dissent might want to join in the effort to canonize Savonarola, the fifteenth century Dominican and fiery reformer. He had many choice words for his nemesis, the Borgia Pope Alexander VI, which sound familiar to participants in contemporary disputes.
Of course Jesuit opposition might have to be overcome. As is well known Jesuits take great pride in fiercely defending the papacy: “Jesuit Fr. Ferdinando Castelli, a writer for La Civiltà Cattolica, was more direct. ‘He rebelled against ecclesiastical authority,’ he said of Savonarola. ‘We do not believe that he was a religious man worthy of sanctification.’”
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/1999a/012299/012299g.htm
Another fascinating dispute featuring Jesuits and Dominicans was apparently resolved by not being resolved. Mark Mossa SJ summarizes “one of the great stories in Church history” which ended with “an agreement that upon the death of the general superior of either order, the living general of the other order would preside at the funeral mass.”
http://markmossasj.blogspot.com/2006/02/jesuits-vs-dominicans.html
I think most politicians have figured out that there are lots of issues on which individual Catholics, maybe even a majority of Catholics don’t think the Pope’s pronouncement represents their views. On the one hand, the Pope wants to be the official spokesperson for all those umpteen millions of “faithful” because without them politicians wouldn’t have nearly as much of a reason to consider his views — but on the other hand, the Pope and the faithful diverge on what they actually want being conveyed to the politicians. I don’t really much care whether an elected official who represents me considers my views to be Catholic — but I surely want him to know that, whether I am considered to be Catholic or not by others, I don’t consider the Church’s position to reflect my policy views on many subjects. That’s not dissent, that’s honesty.
It irritates me that the Pope wants to consider me Catholic for purposes of his own influence, but has no use for my actual view of things. I just want him to stop trying to have it both ways in the political sphere.
One can not be Faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church while opposing the teaching of The Catholic Church, simultaneously. These “views” you refer to are only true if they are consistent with our Faith and Morals.
I have no doubt that John Henry Newman would find the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be a valuable resource.
A few observations:
-I liked Lash’s recent article in America on Newman which applies here.
-How nice someone would call up Rahner’s Christian of the future (but maybe another thread.)
-I find Nancy’s incessant drum beat on Truth (of course equate dwith theLord) but then reduced to CCC and every magisterial pronouncement as both circular and mindnumbing
-On BXVI, and his approach, an HT to Dave in his Tracy article in the current issue when Fr. Tracy gives a talk on VII and why Americans liked it and Ratzinger greets him sumarily and turns on heel and walks away.
A serious discusion of how BXVI represnts the church, it seems to me, must confront problems of balance in our Church.
Bill D. referenced some of that already here. It’s areal problem in “theological impasse” as the curren tissue makes clear again. It’s areal isue in the role of all in contemporary ecclesiology.(A special provblem there is the overwighted role of the Curia and their influence not only on BXVI but on his Episcoipla appointments -the likes of Burke and Law
have, in general, left us with a quite desultory hierachy here.)
There’s lots more, but all of this is about a divide that the Pontiff shoiuld be the uniofier, not the divider in.
Instead we SSPX etc. ….
Re: Father K at 9:23am.
This is what I hear from those you quote: “There are three that rule in Rome: Charity, Reason and Obedience, but the greatest of these is obedience.”
The united front should always be on Matthew 25. Not only in Nazi Germany but throughout history the official church has been dead wrong on the Jews. So we can throw the magisterium out on that one. Matt: 25 is very clear. If we can just stay united on that we would have one super church.
Bob, sorry if you find my “incessant drum beat on Truth” annoying, but I do, at least, try to be consistent. If you start with The Truth, you should end with The Truth, unless you add a false assumption. This is also known as “to come full circle”. :-)
“You present it as if Catholics are ignoring the tradition and voting other forms of self-interest. On some hot button issues, I think it’s that people think the Church is wrong–and that the course of action they propose is harmful. And so they feel a responsibility to not let the Church hurt people–with government money.”
Cathleen – I’m not sure that either of us is presenting self-interest. A Hispanic US citizen can feel sympathy toward undocumented immigrants and so vote for a candidate that advocates liberal/generous immigration policies. Is that a self-interest vote? I’d think that would be complicated to analyze. I’d also suggest that such a vote would be in keeping with what the bishops teach. But did the church influence that vote? Again, difficult to say. How many Catholics know what their bishops say and do? I truly don’t know. I know Andrew Greeley’s social surveys, from 2-3 decades ago now, suggested that a surprising number of Catholics were aware of what the bishops taught in their pastorals, and took the teachings seriously (even when, as in the case of nuclear weapons, a substantial number disagreed with the teaching).
By the same token – a suburban Catholic woman of child-bearing years who is in favor of free condom distribution may be acting altruistically – and may also be acting in her self-interest.
In your example (is it hypothetical?) of whether government clinics should pass out condoms, it’s a well-chosen example to illustrate your point. I’m not familiar enough with British Catholicism or British society to know how such a controversy would play out there. If it were in the US, I’d think a politician who advocated condom distribution would have to consider two aspects: how many votes can the bishops “deliver” (or at least influence); and, probably more importantly, how would Church health-care-delivery organizations (Catholic hospitals, perhaps Catholic Charities) react to the policy?
I was thinking more condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. . . a public health issue. You could use needle exchange. So if the church teaches that this is wrongful cooperation with evil, and a Catholic citizen thinks a) it’s not wrongful cooperation with evil; and b) it’s something that ought to be done to save lives, then does he or she say (as a citizen). . . yes. . . use my tax dollars wisely. . . don’t let any social service agencies participate in government-funded programs unless they agree to distribute condoms–lives are at stake. Or does he or she say (as a Catholic), well I think Church teaching is wrong on this point, but I need to defer to their decision AND protect their right to participate in the public square with public funds.
“One cannot be Faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church while opposing the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
Nancy, I believe that educated, informed, and concerned Catholics should be able to share their opinions — including differing/dissenting opinions — on church matters with each other and with the bishops.
I further believe that the pope and the other bishops should be required to make their case on teachings that they believe are definitive in nature.
Finally, I believe that if, over time, the faithful end up rejecting a teaching, then the Holy Spirit is likely the impetus behind such rejection.
There is room for loyal and faithful dissent in the Catholic Church.
“Benedict Circles the Wagons.”
Hey, Lisa, I used this phraseology several years ago to describe this pope’s behavior.
Pope Bennie is so adept at shooting himself in the proverbial foot!
To paraphrase or quote others: Really, folks, you can’t make this stuff up!”
…or… If a church teaches that prudent secrecy in cases of sexual abuse by clergy is the right thing to do to avoid scandal, and a Catholic citizen disagrees, then does he or she say (as a citizen)… no… let’s call the police. Or does he or she say (as a Catholic), well I think the Church (CCC paragraph 2489) is wrong on this point, but … yes… I need to defer to their decision.
In his splendid book Receiving the Council, Ladislas Orsy (Jesuit canon lawyer) talks about reception of the law. He speaks in terms of canon law but it seems applicable to the discussion of Church teachings. He says you have to look at not only the law, but the theological underpinnings and at how they are received (e.g., whether people embrace them).
He says reception is “… a dynamic process brought forward by those immense energies that circulate in the community of the faithful. They are moved by a desire implanted by the Creator into the human heart to seek the good …” (p. 65)
It is an integrated process:
1) perception of the law
2) quest for understanding – what is the value that the law intends to promote
3) “The third movement in the process is its climax: the law meets the conscience of the receiver. It reaches that luminous part of the person where he or she is bound to God. There, a sovereign judgment will have to be made over the law, a judgment for which the person responsible to his or her Maker and to no one else.” (p. 66)
If there is disharmony for whatever reason, the conflict must be resolved before any action is taken. “The gist of this doctrine is the affirmation of the primacy of conscience over the law: no Christian must hold otherwise.” (p. 66)
4) “The fourth movement follows after the conscience has accepted the law and has integrated its demands with the obligation that binds the person to God. The lawgiver’s intention becomes the receiver’s decision. He or she is willing to act, that is, to reach out for the value that the law wants. This is, before and above all, an obsequium to God, ‘honoring God,’ and only secondarily an act of obedience to the law.” (p. 67)
5) “The fifth movement on the part of the receiver is then the action itself, the implementation of the law in the world of concrete, particular, and personal events.” (p. 67)
When law meets life, “This is a new moment in the life of the law. For the first time, the abstract norm meets the turmoil of concrete events. The law is tried in the crucible of life, as an old saying in jurisprudence goes.” (p. 68)
There may be harmony or there may be conflict. “It arises when the law imposes an action for the acquisition of one value, but in the concrete order the same action is destructive of another value.” (Orsy, p. 68)
I think we’ve seen a lot of that of late.
This is a great book, btw; I can’t say enough good things about it.
Bob Nunz, this discussion made me also think about some of Rahner’s comments on the Church of the future. How about this for a hopeful thought?
“. . . Might not the Church’s sense of responsibility for secular society, proclaimed afresh at Vatican II, permit it to become more clearly aware of its duty and more determined so to shape its own structures for the relationship between base and ministry that they will provide a valuable example also for secular society and for the realization of the freedom of the individual; that the old models will not continue to be the basis of human life together in the Church long after they have been abandoned as obsolete in secular society?”
Karl Rahner, “The Church and the Freedom of the Individual” in Theological Investigations Vol XX: Concern for the Church.
Susan, hopeful indeed. Oh, to be ahead of the curve instead of a couple of centuries behind.
The more I think about it the more flabbergasted I am by the fact that in this day and age, with all the enormous changes we have seen in the past 50 years, like civil rights, the changing roles of women, the fall of communism, the Internet, the booming of capitalism with corporations rising and falling like topsie, that methods of Church governance have not only not evolved, but retrenched. There’s been enormous amounts of spit swapped on the topic, yet nothing seems to change.
What’s up with that? Are the Pope and Curia covered in teflon? What are the underlying dynamics?
Thoughts?
“That long quote from Newman is not from the “Grammar of Assent” but from a letter that he wrote shortly after Vatican I –”
Thank you, Fr. K. for clearing up what was obviously erroneous information on my part re: the source of the comment.
It still stands of course as words of Newman’s that apply in this case.
Jeanne F: Newman appears to have been prolific on the subject of doctrinal development —
“The development then of an idea is not like an investigation worked out on paper, in which each successive advance is a pure evolution from a foregoing, but it is carried on through and by means of communities of men and their leaders and guides; and it employs their minds as its instruments, and depends upon them, while it uses them. And so, as regards existing opinions, principles, measures, and institutions of the community which it has invaded; it develops by establishing relations between itself and them; it employs itself, in giving them a new meaning and direction, in creating what may be called a jurisdiction over them, in throwing off whatever in them it cannot assimilate. It grows when it incorporates, and its identity is found, not in isolation, but in continuity and sovereignty. This it is that imparts to the history both of states and of religions, its specially turbulent and polemical character. Such is the explanation of the wranglings, whether of schools or of parliaments. It is the warfare of ideas under their various aspects striving for the mastery, each of them enterprising, engrossing, imperious, more or less incompatible with the rest, and rallying followers or rousing foes, according as it acts upon the faith, the prejudices, or the interest of parties or classes.”
From “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, Chapter One, Section I.5, John Henry Newman.
(This cite is subject to disputation by Fr. K. I only quote from what I have been told is the source)
Deacon Carroll: The only person I quoted was Pope John XXIII. Do you think he would have said what you interpret him as saying?
Nancy –
An anwer to a question requires that you talk about the same subject in the answer. In this case Cathoics supposedly stopping a lie from being a lie. Talking only about generalities doesn’t get down to specifics..
Please answer my question: how can being a Catholic stop a lie from being a lie?
Ann, you have just asked a new question. A lie is a lie. You original statement was “to order someone to agree when s/he does not agree is to order someone to lie.” The Pope was reminding us that when we profess to believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we are professing to believe in the entire Deposit of Faith, which includes Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Teaching of the Magisterium. If you profess to be Catholic but do not believe in the Deposit of Faith, then the lie would be professing to be Catholic, to begin with. The Pope is not ordering us to lie, he is calling us to Fidelity to Christ and His Church.
The Deposit of Faith, as theologians know, is primarily the mystery of Christ, and secondarily a number of creedal propositions defending that mystery. A small number.
None of the issues discussed here have to do with the Deposit of Faith. One can perfectly well disagree with current church teachings on details of moral theology without being in conflict with the Deposit of Faith, just as someone who disagreed with church approval of slavery 130 years ago would not have been in conflict with the Deposit of Faith (au contraire).
Throughout the centuries of the Inquisition people were ordered to state beliefs against their conscience under pain of torture, imprisonment or death. This tradition lives on insidiously in some proceedings of the CDF today. It is the worst scandal in Christian tradition, because it poisons the well of truth at its source.
Actually, it is heresy that poisons the well of Truth at its source.
“None of these issues here have to do with the Deposit of Faith.”
God is the Lord and Giver of Life which includes the complementary nature of Man and Woman, and His intention for Sexual Love within a Holy Marriage.
Every Catholic Theologian should understand The Truth of Love from The Beginning unless h/she has not been properly catechized.
Nancy, Truth is a mystery, Love is a mystery beyond us, no one understands those ideas fully, and we can only approach them. We will get a better understanding by thinking about it together. It is a way of taking care of one another. You are doing a disservice to the Church by refusing discussions (what I mean is that you are not refusing exactly, but that, except on rare occasions when the topic of abortion comes up, you do not seem to be giving voice to your own self in your own words). You are not forming your own personal opinion, so you cannot compare it to the views of other members of the church, and you are not doing your part of the work so that we may progress together in our understanding of those great mysteries.
Fr K,
I was inclined to respond that “I call them as I sees them” but I went back and re-read the quotes and I completely withdraw the comment I made. I was reading into the quote what was not there at all.
Claire, regarding my responses, I guess, in this case I would agree with St.Thomas Aquinas when he said, “Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others comtemplated truths, than merely to contemplate.”
St. Thomas Aquinas also said that “If we resolve the problems posed by faith exclusively by means of authority, we will of course possess the truth–but in empty heads!” (Quodlibet IV, art 16–Paris, 1271). Having “an audacious trust in the coherence of faith and reason” (Chenu) means that if you have thought yourself out of faith, reality is such that you will also be able to think yourself back in.
“I was thinking more condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. . . a public health issue. You could use needle exchange. So if the church teaches that this is wrongful cooperation with evil, and a Catholic citizen thinks a) it’s not wrongful cooperation with evil; and b) it’s something that ought to be done to save lives, then does he or she say (as a citizen). . . yes. . . use my tax dollars wisely. . . don’t let any social service agencies participate in government-funded programs unless they agree to distribute condoms–lives are at stake. Or does he or she say (as a Catholic), well I think Church teaching is wrong on this point, but I need to defer to their decision AND protect their right to participate in the public square with public funds.”
I’d think that, in the US, most voters would do the former – would use their own judgment, even if they happen to be aware of this church teaching (all this being hypothetical, of course – I don’t think the church is particularly vociferous or singlemindedly clear on needle exchange or abstinence-only education).
So then, to your earlier point – if Catholics agreed that there should be a single spokesperon in these “external” conversations, it doesn’t really seem to be truth-in-advertising for the Archbishop of Canterbury, or NY, to claim, ‘I speak for all Catholics on this’ when in fact there is a good deal of internal disagreement, and that disagreement plays itself out in public opinion and the voting booth. I get that part of it.
I just think it’s more complicated than that … that when a bishop makes a public statement in the course of an “external” conversation, there is a lot of “internal” communicating going on as well – to inform Catholics about the issue and where the church stands, and to persuade them of the rightness of the official position. Public opinion is dynamic and a bishop possesses a bully pulpit.
Maybe there is even messaging to Catholic and non-Catholic politicians along the lines of, ‘this is our view, and if you don’t support this policy you might find yourself with a primary challenge from someone who toes this line’ – not that bishops run candidates against incumbents, but there are plenty of instances of candidates who decide of their own volition to run for office because the incumbent takes a morally repugnant position.
That sort of dynamic – the church teaches moral principles, and the laity apply those principles in politics – is something that I believe Benedict envisions.
Jim, the step missing from the scenario you describe (in which the bishops do internal” communicating to inform Catholics about the issue and where the church stands, and to persuade them of the rightness of the official position, etc.) is the step where the bishops first listen to the “sense of the faithful” before arriving at a stand.
The 2009 U.S. Bishops Pastoral Letter on Marriage is a prime example of the bishops NOT listening to the sense of the faithful. It repeats the Church position against artificial contraception and references papal encyclicals, allocutions, books and speeches. What it doesn’t reference is anything related to the lived experience of the faithful that the bishops are supposed to be guiding.
The footnotes in the Bishops letter show the world from which it is derived. It is not the world in which most of the faithful live.
32 references to the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults
17 references to John Paul II, On the Family (Familiaris Consortio)
14 references to Gaudium et Spes
10 references to the Code of Canon Law
8 references to bishops letters
7 references to Pope Paul VI, On the Regulation of Birth (Humanae Vitae)
4 references to Lumen Gentium
etc.
It’s a pastoral letter on a topic that by definition the bishops do not have first-hand knowledge. Yet the references in its over one hundred footnotes show that no actual married people were consulted in its preparation.
No doubt, through Faith and Reason, we understand that what the Magisterium puts forth as true regarding The Truth, is true for actual Married people as well.
Jeanne, we have no record that Jesus was married, and yet he commented, very clearly, about divorce. Do you dismiss those words out of hand because he had no first-hand experience of it? (I’m not claiming that the bishops are Jesus – they certainly are not! – and yet the logic seems the same).
Some bishops may wish to avoid all contact with the people they lead, and we should feel very sorry for the people in such dioceses, but any bishop who is reasonably fulfilling his episcopal role comes into contact with real people, including real married people, virtually every day. He may not be married himself, but he does not lack for social intercourse with married people.
Most bishops also led relatively normal lives prior to entering the priesthood – they were members of families and lived a family life. The ways of marriage and family life are not utterly unknown to them.
As confessors, they learn many intimate things about marriages – a breadth of experience beyond the reach of most lay adults.
As the supreme judicial authority in their dioceses, they also are exposed, again with great breadth, to failed marriages. Again, arguably they have insights from this experience that typical married couples lack.
Many dioceses have departments to promote marriages and married life. In Chicago, this department is staffed largely by married lay people with academic crededntials that qualify them as experts. Bishops may not know everything there is to know about marriage (or about any other topic) but there are experts to consult. We may hope that this pastoral was prepared by bishops who were wise enough to consult such experts, even though evidence for such consultation doesn’t exist in the footnotes. But I’m not familiar with the history of the document’s composition, so I don’t know if such informal consultation took place. Do you?
All this to point out that while bishops lack personal experience as married person (and personal experience often has gaps and is frequently not a reliable guide from which to derive underlying principles), that does not mean that they don’t have something important to teach us.
Most bishops also led relatively normal lives prior to entering the priesthood – they were members of families and lived a family life.
Precisely. I think that their experience of women is primarily as mothers who are there to provide to the needs of their family. They are happy to place women in their role of mothers on a pedestal, but have difficulty viewing women as equal partners at work, and have no internal knowledge of women as intimate partners in life’s journey.
Just think how your own ideas about women have matured (I would guess) since you got married…
Nancy, may I have your own thoughts about my views expressed yesterday at 5:39 pm?
Another take on”circling the wagons.” Perhaps that’s not a good phrase. Let me try something else. How about “The Church’s Organizational Near-mirror Image: The typical State University.”
During my lengthy (and personally satisfying) career at the University of Georgia, here’s ho wthe hierarchical system worked.
1. President and his/her “cabinet. They set the agenda, decided what was relevant, and allocated resources and input opportunities for their subordinates. They made evaluations and appointments accordingly.
2. Deans. Delegated to “make the numbers” and make sure that nothing (e.g., bad press of any sort), interfered with the implementation of the President’s agenda. If these tasks are taken care of, then deans have some flexibility to take some initiatives within their own domains, subject always to the Prresident’s oversight.
3. At Georgia, we had strong department heads, not department chairs. Heads were primarily answerable to their particular dean. The dean’s primary concern, apart from insuring against faculty moral turpitude, was to “make the assigned numbers,” numbers of students taught, credit hours produced, papers published, etc. How the heads got this productivity out of their faculty members was no big concern.
4. Faculty members. Argue about curriculum, department policies, etc, but by all means nmake the assigned numbers. Over and above this, they were free to do whateveer they wished, so long as it was consistent with all the directives from any of the above.
5. Students. Everybody “above” them wanted the students to be happy, to succeed, and not to interfere with any part of “making the numbers,” etc.
Staff (secretaries, librarians, maintenance staff, etc.). Just do your job and do it on time. What your job is will be assigned by the relevant administrators, ultimately answerable to the President.
The analogy to ecclesiastical organization is pretty clear, it seems to me.
1a. Pope and Curia.
2a. Diocesan bishop.
3a. Pastor.
4a. Pastoral team, whether clerical or lay.
5a. Ordinary lay folk.
Apparently, large-size hierarchies have been pretty much like this, and one can see why. There’s a job to do and only so much time and energy for the people in charge to do it in.
Today, the story is that many big businesses are much less tightly organized. Whether that’s so or not, I don’t know.
As I said, i, an ordinary faculty member, had an overall satisfying career ( one awful dept. head and two dud deans notwithstanding). But then I didn’t have to pay much attention to presidents or deans nor they to me.
I don’t like it that this hierarchical structure seems to be the structure of the Church, but I’m hard pressed to think of anything better. What I would hope, though, is a bit more modesty and flexibility in the clergy, less assertions that they –as our congregation was recently told–”have the truth” about how to apply moral principles, etc. It would be nice if they showed that they continue to think and read and try to make time to listen to those below them on the hierarchical ladder.
Jim Pauwels, Jesus’ teaching on divorce is far from clear — given the exception clause in Matthew. The Church, of course, has been very liberal in granting divorce under the Petrine and Pauline privileges.
“God is the Lord and Giver of Life which includes the complementary nature of Man and Woman, and His intention for Sexual Love within a Holy Marriage.”
Entirely true, whether or not we count it as part of the Deposit of Faith.
What certainly cannot be part of the Deposit is the homophobic ideology that insists gays are really straights who should marry people of the other sex. Their sexual vocation is to love one of their own sex, and this is a feature of divine providential order that the churches are now coming to recognize more clearly.
“Their sexual vocation is to love one of their own sex, and this is a feature of divine providential order that the churches are now coming to recognize more clearly.”
By “churches” we can presume you are not referring to The Catholic Church, since it is true that no evidence exists in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The teaching of the Magisterium that would support the statement that “their sexual vocation is to love one of their own sex” and that this is “a feature of divine providential order”.
Jim, I weonder as “the judicial authority” in a diocese and even more so in an rachdiocese, a bishop has direct contact with married people’s problems? And how many confessions do they hear?
And, if some, is it any way comparable to the pastoral experience of clergy assigned to a parish?
I guess lots of places have family life staffs of eduvated laity – but would any be hired if they didn’ t adhere to the party line?
The Pastoral has been roundly critizcized in several quarters.The problem is it’s no tpastorally grounded.
I’ve already said elsewhere that many of our hierarchy seem to live an extremely encapsulated existence, much like beaurocratic mangers who spend their days only looking up the line.
The system’s working, from my perspective, is out of balance.
Nancy,
Thank you for answering my question. What you say (at the end of the answer where you get to your answer) is true,0 no doubt. That is one of the things the Pope obviously wants to get across — the need to defend the truths we are entrusted with
However, he also says that everyone must defend what Rome teaches, this in spite of the fact that Rome is sometimes wrong.
Or do you believe that what the Pope teaches can never be wrong?
Fr. O’Leary said “The Church, of course, has been very liberal in granting divorce under the Petrine and Pauline privileges.”
The Catholic Church also effectively gives tacit approval to divorce with what has become the widespread granting of annulments. In their 2002 book, “Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments”, Joseph Martos and Pierre Hegy state:
“Because the grounds for annulment have become so broad that practically anyone who applies for one can obtain it, many observers now regard annulments as ‘virtual divorces.’ After all, the same grounds for divorce in a civil court have ‘become grounds for the nonexistence of marriage in an ecclesiastical court.’ (Page 23) To add to the deceit, many couples who receive annulments do so believing that their marriage was, in fact, sacramentally valid – that the marital bond did exist but that, over time, it began to break down. These couples, understandably, choose not to disclose this part of the story to marriage tribunals so that they can qualify for an annulment.”
In other words it is the Catholic game of nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
“it is true that no evidence exists in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The teaching of the Magisterium that would support the statement that “their sexual vocation is to love one of their own sex” and that this is “a feature of divine providential order”.”
Actually, a lot of evidence can be found if you have eyes to see it.
I recommend to you the tenderly homoerotic passages in Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, Paulinus of Nola, Aelred of Rievaulx, Newman, Hopkins, and also the biblical tales of David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi. But more than that I recommend the Christian doctrine of charity — “love one another as I have loved you” — which has a rich application here. Ex-gay quacks, as a recent expose revealed, are obliged to say that such love is “dark” and stems from original sin. Thus has fundamentalism poisoned the wells of human affection.
“Love one another as I have Loved you.”
- The Word of God, Who Has Revealed to us, that Love is not possessive and that only in a complementary relationship of Sexual Love between one Man and one Woman, can two become one, to begin with. I recommend that when you refer to the Word of God, you begin at The Beginning. It is through the Word of God that we can know the essence of Love and see The Heart of God, if you have the eyes to “see” The Truth of Love.
BXVI is indeed circling the wagons -in talking to the Scotch Bishops he’s insasiting on fidelity to the magiaterium as it really liberates us.
i doubt most here beleive that analysis.
“- The Word of God, Who Has Revealed to us, that Love is not possessive and that only in a complementary relationship of Sexual Love between one Man and one Woman, can two become one, to begin with. I recommend that when you refer to the Word of God, you begin at The Beginning. It is through the Word of God that we can know the essence of Love and see The Heart of God, if you have the eyes to “see” The Truth of Love.”
Where does it say “only”?
Scripture says marriage is a very wonderful thing, and it also says same-sex friendship is a very wonderful thing. More generally it sees an affinity between Love and the Creative Action of God. That is a theme for our further meditation, not for wall-eyed sloganeering.
“Where does it say only?”
“…for THIS reason a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife…”
This reason, as in not one of many reasons, or one of the reasons, but THIS reason.
It is also because of THIS reason, the inherent, ordered nature of Sexual Love, that “fathers and daughters, ‘mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, children, two men or two women, one man and two women, one woman and two men’, are not demeaned, their equality not denied, their Love is not diminished, when they are barred from Marrying one another.”-Hadley Arkes