My initial reaction to the weekend’s American Catholic Conference was simply to refer to it, with minimal personal comment (I was under severe pressure for time), as “prophetic witness”. Since then, I was interest to read Betty Clermont’s contrary reaction, which expressed disappointment in the lack of “action” coming out of Detroit. In my view, this misses the point. Simply by taking place, in the context of clear and direct hostility by the local bishop, is profound and important action in itself – irrespective of any other content. (Although the content I have seen coming out, is well worth chewing over).
Next week, I will be leading a workshop on Birmingham on an LGBT Catholic perspective on the past 35 years, and the next. Looking back is easy – looking ahead is tougher. As I have deliberated on this, I have developing an idea that some might find surprising: in some important respects, the Vatican has already lost its power of absolute control over the Catholic Church. The real church, the church as a whole which comprises all of us. is simply getting on with things without waiting for the bishops and Vatican oligarchs to lead. (I have putting together the evidence for this view in a number of posts at Queering the Church, for example at Yes, It Moves: The Catholic Church No Longer Revolves Around the Vatican) . I will be fleshing this out into an extended, coherent argument over the course of the next 1o days, prior to the LGCM conference).
In his video address, Hans Kung called for the start of a revolution against Vatican absolutism – but it is too late to begin to start a revolution. This is already under way, the second Reformation has already begun. Theologian Anthony T. Padovano reminded the conference that “The pope does not unify or sanctify the church and make it catholic or apostolic. This is the work of the Spirit and the community.” What I found especially interesting is that Padovano is described as the head of CORPUS, “an organization seeking return to ministry of priests who were forced to leave active ministry because they wished to marry” (a subject that Jayden Cameron has already taken up in his own observations on the conference, and which I return to below).
The simple fact that this conference took place at all, like the existence of the womenpriests movement, and the major conference of Catholic ethicists that took place last June independently of the Vatican, and the Minneapolis Synod of the baptized in September, and the diminished ability of the institutional church to dictate social policy in Catholic countries like Argentina (gay marriage) or divorce (Malta), and the total disregard of ordinary Catholics for doctrines such as Humanae Vitae, indicate to me how dramatically the Vatican is losing its absolute control of the real, living church. As I summarized it at Queering the Church,
1) The Vatican has clearly lost control of Catholic consciences.
2) The Vatican no longer has monopoly control of Catholic theology
3) The Catholic Church is no longer able to dictate to Catholic politicians on public policy
4) There is even evidence that Rome is beginning to lose its absolute control of its own bishops and priests, and of the ordination process.
The Detroit conference may not have come up with tangible “actions”, but I don’t believe that really matters, compared with what is going on in Catholic hearts and minds. Unlike secular states, the only power that the oligarchs really possess is the control of our minds. As far as I can tell, the ideas coming out of this week’s conference, and the fact that it took place in clear defiance of the local bishop, is where the important action is – undermining that absolute control. Catholics outside the centres of power are flexing their muscles.
Jayden Cameron, in his response to the conference, also draws attention to Padovan’s observation that we are Catholics by right of baptism, and makes an important connection with yesterday’s feast of Pentecost – which produces his wonderful, fully descriptive title for his post: “Tongues of Fire Burning the Building Down“. This is precisely what is happening: lay Catholics and junior clergy, whom the the Vatican expects to simply toe the line and refrain from independent thinking, are not only thinking for themselves, they are finding a voice. In doing so, inflamed by the Holy Spirit, they are indeed starting to burn the edifice of Vatican absolutism.
Where do we go from here? Betty Clermont in her post suggested that there cannot be real progress as long as we simply continue to attend Mass like dutiful Catholics. This will shrink the existing institutional Church by attrition, but what will replace it? Alternatively, if the embryonic re-formation now beginning is to follow the pattern of the earlier Reformation, then we will have fragmentation as before, with a rump Catholic Church still firmly in control of the Vatican and a diminished but loyal band of followers. Is this what we want? Jayden Cameron discusses the moves in some circles to simply get on with the Mass without necessarily depending on the officially approved ordained priesthood (there is already an abundance of priests who have left active ministry in order to marry, or as a matter of conscience over the doctrinal stance on homosexuality and other matters, as there are a small but growing number of Roman Catholic Womenpriests. There are also devout and competent lay leaders who could be entrusted to lead a Eucharistic service, just as was done in the early days of the Mass). I do not want to get into a full discussion of this possibility here, but rather to point to some of the dangers in this way of thinking, and to suggest that the Detroit conference could be pointing to a constructive way forward.
Rethinking the Parent – Child Relationship in the Church
As Jayden observes, this prospect will be frightening to many Catholics, and most certainly will be met with hostility by the institutional church, leading to the possibility of either gradual fragmentation, or real schism. That may be unavoidable, but I wonder if there is another way? Independently of the conference,I have been thinking a lot during the past fortnight the last week about the traditional imagery of “Mother Church” and “Holy Father” – imagery which I object to for the way it places the rest of us in the role of meekly docile, subservient children. However, there is another interpretation of this same imagery. In an earlier reflection on this parent -child relationship, I observed that in our human families, we grow up. As we mature, so do our family relationships, with the early one of parental authority and child obedience giving way to a more adult relationship of mutuality and respect, in which we are happy to learn from the wisdom and experience of age – but our parents are also happy to learn from us, in those matters where we know more than they. Later still, went my earlier thinking, there comes a point where the relationship changes again, and we may need to put our parents into frail care. This may have been too harsh in its expression and implications of abandonment of the weak and elderly.
My own mother died last October, back in South Africa. Although I was not around much during her last years , I know that the response of my siblings to Mom’s declining health was very far from that of abandonment, but was one of great personal care and nurturing. If my original concept of a maturing parent-child relationship is applicable to the relationship between the institutional church and its people, it is this concept of a nurturing and caring lay leadership that may be more relevant that that of simply consigning the oligarchs to frail care.
How are we to do this? I suspect in the example of the Detroit conference, and others like it, there may be the germ of an idea worth developing. There are many in the Church who yearn for the lost ideals of Vatican II – but I am impatient with this. Vatican II was itself deeply flawed, not least in its virtual exclusion of women and lay people. Others are starting to call for Vatican III, but this too will be a non-starter if it is to take place only as a result of Vatican initiative and Vatican control. But what if the Detroit conference, the Minneapolis synod, and the Triento conference of moral theologians were to be endlessly repeated, at different scales, in a multitude of locations, and with varying subject focus, with increasing frequency around the world culminating in a truly global synod of the baptized?
I have one important qualification. If such a series of conferences were to be set up not simply independently of bishops and the Vatican but in hostile opposition, this would be tantamount to abandoning them to frail care, not the kind of loving care I am thinking of. Instead, I would like to see a series of these synods and conferences set up by lay initiative and under lay leadership, but with cordial invitations and expectations of bishops’ and priests’ participation. Some of our potentates will react with hostility – some elderly people reject all offers of care, insisting on trying to assert an independence they are unable to sustain. Others though, may well respond to such invitations in the appropriate spirit, leading to constructive and mutually respectful discussion, rather than sterile talking (or shouting) past each other.
Is this too much to hope for – or to work toward?
Filed under: church reform | Tagged: American Catholic Conference, Catholic Church, Holy Spirit |
Betty Clermont
colkoch
Richard Demma
frankcocozzelli
gaysurvivor
johnjmcneill
Michael Bayly
Obie Holmen
opentabernacle
Phillip Clark
Terence
The Open Tabernacle: Here Comes Everybody 
Much of what you write is correct except for an organization which stated they wanted “to move from ideas to solutions and actions” which will result in reform of the institutional American Catholic Church while you refer to groups which meet without any intention of, or concern for, bringing change to the organization.
Also I agree with you about the diminishing capacity of the Roman Catholic Church to effect social change in other parts of the world. However, in the US the episcopate nearly prevented passage of our health care reform bill and have successfully been able to increase anti-abortion and gay rights legislation at the state level.
You seem concerned about “what will replace” the institution. I have never written about that because to me, the vital issue is that the current hierarchs are morally corrupt. If I were writing about corruption in the police department or the government, I would not have to suggest an alternative method of law enforcement or governing. The elimination of corruption is a worthy goal in itself.
That said, I agree that when laity meet in defiance of their bishops that alone sends a powerful message and that that is, indeed, a worthy outcome in and of itself.
(I reposted my blog at your urging, Terry. I don’t care that your intent was to refute it since open discussion is valuable. I do object to your lack of candor as to the reason for your encouraging me to do so.)
Betty, I sorry if I have given offence. I was not aware of any “lack of candour” in anything I have written, in my email, or in the post. I also did not write the above with any intention of “refuting” your reaction, but simply in response.
It is true that given the circumstances of my time this week, there was a delay between my initial draft, which I put together immediately I read your post, and the final version. There may have been a shift in emphasis that resulted.
On the specifics of the organisation, your observation that they claimed to want “to move from ideas to solutions and actions” does indeed put a different complexion on things. I was not aware of this claim – being away from home for awhile, and tied up with other matters since, I had not looked too closely at the specific background, but was writing more on the principle of the matter.
For myself, I am past the point where I give a damn about the Vatican–people, power, or money. That has zero to do with Jesus Christ. I do give a damn about the corruption and the debilitating effects Church leaders can still have in our country, but even more so in developing countries. Taking over Caritas Internationalis is more proof that the Vatican is quite willing to use charity to play power politics.
It’s got to stop. Jesus probably cares far less about 40,000 protestant denominations than he does one huge corrupt Catholic Institution. It’s time we faced that fact.
Yes, Colleen. As usual you hit the nail on the head. Vatican Inc. is still in a position to do great harm as defender and facilitator of the multinational oligarchs of unlimited wealth.
Colleen, and Betty:
As it happens, I largely agree with you – for myself. The Vatican is irrelevant, to me. Unfortunately, that most certainly does not apply to others, and especially not to the hundreds of millions who feel spiritually bullied, to the point of serious guilt, depression, and more, on all matters of sexual ethics, or on the place of women in the church. It is on their account that we need to find ways to demonstrate the increasing irrelevance of the Vatican, and if possible (perhaps not), to coax the oligarchs too, or at least some of them, into the real world.
Terry,
Let me offer this perspective:
How do I know that your reaction to the Vatican is not the same as a petulant teenager?
I, for one, find the Vatican increasingly relevant in a world whose heroes are movie stars and sports figures. I do not feel any sense of being spiritually bullied about abortion, gay marriage, or contraception. I am grateful that there is another voice out there offering alternatives, which I can either accept or deny.
If you are trying to “find ways to demonstrate the increasing irrelevance of the Vatican” on my account, please stop. I don’t need that kind of help – especially from my petulant brother. Tell me of the kindness, generosity, and strength of my parents so that I may focus upon their goodness rather than dwell on their faults.
Let me also offer this perspective:
The Vatican is not irrelevant for you. It dominates a good share of your thoughts about the meaning of Catholicism, and your identity as a Christian and a Catholic. That is a good thing. Catholicism needs petulant teenagers to challenge the ways of the parents.
David, your reference to a petulant teacher is an important one. After I published the post, I had a similar thought myself- that in our human relationships, we often move beyond the docile obedience of childhood to adolescent rebellion. In a mature and adult relationship. we must obviously move beyond that.
I am pleased that you do not feel bullied by the Vatican, and recognize that you are able to either accept or deny its voice. This is part of the adult relationship we should be seeking. However, the Vatican and the Bishops too often present that voice as it we are not permitted to deny it, such as when it seeks to impose itself in the political process, not simply by articulating a point of view (which is fine), but with armtwisting, even to the threat of excommunication. You may not feel any sense of being bullied by the church, but I assure that countless others do. It is not on your account that I draw attention to the demonstrable fact that the power of of the Vatican is in decline, but theirs.
Power is also not the same as relevance – the two are linked, but it is the power and control I was writing about originally.
You may regard me personally as a petulant teenager, but I was trying to depict a model of a relationship between the leadership of the Church, and the rest of us as a whole. It is most certainly true that we need to move beyond petulance or rebellion – but conversely the church leadership must also learn to treat us like adults.
Terry,
There can be no doubt that the power and control that the Vatican has is declining. But, I think the power and control of all institutionalized religion and churches for Western man is in decline. In the U.S. there has been tremendous growth on both ends of the religious spectrum. For the most part, Catholics who leave the Church either go the evangelical direction or the agnostic direction. Very few enter a less dogmatic institutional structure – such as a Lutheran church.
How the Vatican should react to the spreading of its children is an interesting administrative, and perhaps spiritual question. Should it offer something to those who leave for a more literal and fundamental approach to the Bible? Should it change its dogma to a less “offensive” and “more inclusive” dogma so that liberals don’t leave? Should it become more pastoral, and less intellectual in its spirituality? In other words, should it react to all of its children’s complaints, and if so, how so?
I applaud your efforts to maintain your sense of identity as a Catholic. The Vatican is part of the identity. For its part, there are many aspects of strong, centralized authority that benefit the Church and the world. Destroy the Vatican, and who will speak of the atrocities of war with any authority? Who will support the worldwide web of social assistance to the poor? Who will be strong enough to stand against military dictators?
That’s funny David. Your terminology brought back some great memories of my elder brothers. They were entitled beyond belief and never had to earn their entitlement. They, in their greater wisdom, egged me on to take on the parental units, essentially fighting their battles as well as mine. Then when I lost, they would tell me how stupid and fixated I was to take on mom and dad. But when I won, that was different. Then the issue wasn’t important enough for them to really bother about.
Straight males seem to have a very interesting relationship with male authority. It’s very frequently passive agressive—-as opposed to ‘petulant’.
Colleen,
I don’t quite understand your comments. How is my attitude passive aggressive? And, if it is, how is that worse than aggressive/aggressive behavior displayed by many Vatican opponents?
I can’t say that I agree with all of the Vatican’s teachings. However, I do try to understand why it is teaching what it is teaching. I try to do the same with my parents.
The road to salvation is not paved with victories over the Vatican. It is paved with victories over evil.
Wonderful statement, Colleen.
Yes, straight white men have it soooo hard these days, don’t they? Why, poor Mr. Romney has just informed us he’s unemployed. And poor feckless Mr. Edwards with his criminal record and that godawful mug shot, grinning like a fool with nary worry in the world! And poor Mr. Weiner with those embarrassing photos someone decided to snap of him and send around online. And poor Mr. Gingrich having to deal with those rude questions about how he can preach family values while running around on one wife as she lies in the hospital recuperating from cancer surgery, then telling the second wife there’s now a third significant other in his life just as he returns from a family values conference. And the poor Knights of Columbus having to deal with people pointing out that they now spend a far huger chunk of their change on removing rights from a vulnerable minority group, than on feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked, etc.
And don’t get me started on the trials and tribulations of the Chamber of Commerce and the straight white men who run that organization, as they work day and night to keep things in order and make rules for the rest of us. Why, right in my own conservative little state in the bible belt, there’s a growing movement to stop our city government from giving taxpayer-funded handouts to this group which has become a political lobbying group trying to block health care coverage for as many citizens as possible.
It just never seems to end, the trials and tribulations of straight white men.
And on top of it all, there’s all that work creating and enforcing all the rules that seem mysteriously to apply to everyone except themselves. Because, you know the argument, the world will fall apart if they aren’t allowed to make the rules and remind us every moment of the day that the rules are there and are to be obeyed and yada, yada, yada, yada.
Of course, in the case of the church, it’s important that we not look too closely underneath the silk and bling and various other ecclesial gewgaws to verify the actual, honest to God heterosexuality of the “straight” white men making all those rules that apply to everyone except themselves. Still, it’s having the appearance of right order, “natural” law, rules, regulations, order, and decency that counts most of all, in the end, isn’t it?
And knowing who God intended to be on the top of the heap as the rules get handed down. And whose need for order (and control and domination) those rules serve.
Oh, and I didn’t even think to mention all the trials and tribulations those fellows have running almost every church or other religion to be found in the world, and interpreting all the sacred books of all those religions (since they claim they wrote all of those books, anyhow), and using those religions and those books to make rules that remind us whom God made first and foremost, and why “He” did that.
Almost makes you wonder what God created women and gay folks for, doesn’t it?
I am not suggesting the travails of The Episcopal Church in the United States as illustrative of a desirable way forward. Only that something like it could happen to Catholics here & elsewhere, namely a protracted court fight (like any divorce) over who gets the stuff, who gets the money, who gets the “brand” and who gets the bill.
I’ll give the conservative faction in The Episcopal Church this much: they stand up for themselves. They scrap with their parent body over property and, when they lose (and there’s no hard & fast rule about who wins & loses property fights, for a variety of legal reasons) they pack up, pick up & start over. Many are now part of a nascent “Anglican Church in North America.”
The ACNA has its own problems. Having split from The Episcopal Church over the issue of homosexuality, the two factions in the ACNA, evangelicals & anglo-catholics, are themselves split over the admission of women to orders. Some evangelicals are for it, some merely tolerate it, and most anglo-catholics are against it.
A question for Catholic progressives: are you ready for the next steps? Those could be getting parishes, in whole or in part, to leave the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, with or without the parish plant? Religious orders, same questions? That may include the step of going to court to keep what may be perceived as “your” stuff as you leave a given RC diocese? Now the legal situation of the RC and it’s property ownership is mostly VERY different from other Christian bodies in the United States. The little I know about property law is that it’s a purely state-by-state issue.
Here’s a what if for you. The school where I work also has a working parish adjacent to it. The many of the faculty, staff, students, administration and religious associated with the school & parish have simply had enough with what they perceive as “Roman intransigence.” Well, okay you guys, buck up. I mean, if you’re individually & collectively modern Lutherans, in the sense that the Holy Spirit has inspired a New Reformation, why not call a press conference and say “We are no longer affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church in this part of the United States. We are part of a new, affiliative, non-hierarchic, collective we call “The American Catholic Church.” And let the chips fall where they may. Why the hesitation to proceed?
Now this is all easy for me to say – I’m one of the guys who might help push you out. And I’m also not part of the group challenging a authority structure. So that in itself might explain some reticence. I’ve got nothing to lose. Other people may have a great deal to lose. But I sense reticence and a disconnect between rhetoric & action centered around a single question: why stay in a church you hate, that you perceive hates you? The first rule for people in an abusive relationship is “if you’re life is threatened get out.” My perception of some Catholic Progressives is that they feel their spiritual life is threatened. If that’s so, why stay? And if the Roman institution is that abusive, why not take talk to action, and action to that cliche of “the next level?”
There’s lots of travail going around in a lot of churches today, isn’t there, Mark? The Episcopal church has long been used as a bogeyman for Catholics of the right, as a morality tale to demonstrate that “liberal”-trending churches decline.
But new data released recently about membership statistics in the reliably arch-conservative Southern Baptist church shows that church declining in membership at an alarming rate–after it took a strong turn to the right in the early 1980s, and began to implement precisely the kind of strong centralized authority and dogmatic purism of which right-wing Catholics are so fond.
You also say,
The answer to that question seems painfully obvious to me: church is family. People may distance themselves from abusive family contexts, but they don’t “get out” of family. Because we can’t. Family is who we are, what we’re born into. It shapes us, for weal or for woe, throughout our lives.
And bona fide family members–good ones–wouldn’t dream of taunting other family members to “get out.” By doing that, they’d expose themselves as bogus family, as anything but real family.
Surely no Catholic who understands what that term means would want to expose himself as such a bogus family member intent on taunting brothers and sisters to “get out.” Would he?
Mark wrote: “why not say “We are no longer affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. We are part of a new, affiliative, non-hierarchic, collective we call “The American Catholic Church.” And let the chips fall where they may. Why the hesitation to proceed?”
That is exactly what is taking place now, Mark.
Bill, your response to my post understandably sounds grief stricken. Betty, your post sounds like what happens when the energy behind grief gets put to use.
If a segment of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is engaged in a project to create the American Catholic Church – in fact if not in a concrete organizational & legal structure – so be it. Gamaliel’s advice (Acts 5:38-39) is well taken here.
Better to be for something than merely against the Roman Catholic Church forever.
Thanks for your response, Mark–and for your concern about my “grief-stricken” state.
But your concern has caused you somehow to overlook the question I asked you. Here it is again:
Would he, Mark?
Bill, only you can decide where you feel accepted or where you feel you belong – where “family” is.
In modernity we have a definition of family which is not the same as what Jesus might refer to as “siblinghood under a beneficent Abba-God.” That in itself points to a problem with modern family that needs attention & correction.
As brothers in Christ we can agree to disagree about many things. As brothers in Christ we can be part of a Roman Catholic “family” – I am not sure that’s the right word for the ecclesia, given the modern baggage that goes with the word family – agreeing on some things, disagreeing about others.
There may – may, a critical word – be some things that are such a fundamental part of the Roman Catholic “family” way of following Jesus that you either follow them & remain Roman Catholic, or you don’t follow them and become something other than Roman Catholic. Those things, summarized in the ancient “symbols” of faith, center on fundamental theology, the Divine Nature, the Person & work of Jesus-the-Christ for our salvation, and the continuation of all three – fundamental theology, the Divine Nature, Jesus – in the ecclesia under the presidency of the Holy Spirit.
The Roman Catholic Church sees itself, it’s dogma & core doctrine illustrated (for lack of a better word) in what I’ll call a one-sex priestly ministry and a two-sex marriage. The Roman Catholic Church does not see itself, does not recognize itself, in either a two-sex priestly ministry or a one-sex marriage. I don’t perceive myself as taunting you or anyone by saying this. I know this to be the teaching of the Church. I agree with it. I understand you to say you do not agree with it. I know you understand what the Church says about itself. I know you disagree with that “saying” and the reasoning behind it.
If there exists even the most remote chance you might have the slightest glimmer that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church might conceivably be right, or that you could even remotely tolerate the outside chance that the Church could be right I suggest you stay in the Church and be welcome in it. I invite you to stay in the Church.
If you firmly disagree with the Church and have even once second-guessed your disagreement then I suggest you stay in the Church and be welcome in it. I invite you to stay in the Church.
If you are settled in conscience and intellectual reflection that the pastors of the Roman Catholic Church are entirely in the wrong across the broad range of issues important to you, I still invite you to stay in the Church.
As to whether you in fact do stay in the Church and engage with it, even if the Church does its level best to leave, I still invite you to stay in the Church. THE Church. Not some new “American Catholic Church.” In the end it’s not about you and the Church, it’s about you and Jesus. Jesus needs you. Jesus doesn’t necessarily need the Church. We humans, because we’re (as Aristotle & Aquinas say) social animals, we need the Church. We need a group. Whether or not this particular group, the Roman Catholic Church, meets your needs is entirely up to you.
Thanks, Mark. You and I seem to have very different understandings of family. I hear you arguing for a classic American atomic individualistic notion of family: we decide who is or is not family.
I see family as what’s given, the backdrop against which we live our lives, for weal or woe. We certainly can decide how to relate to that given, and we all do in different ways. To use the cafeteria analogy: just as all Catholics, whether they’re conservative or liberal, select from the cafeteria palatable items, we do the same in our connection to our families.
As you say, however, families are capable of change and of development. Which makes it ironic that you don’t seem able to see that same possibility for the family that’s the people of God. You want to absolutize teachings that are not part of the core teachings that bind us together as a family–the core credal affirmations–and you want to make those a litmus test for membership in the family that is the people of God.
And, of course, many of your brothers and sisters in that family will simply ignore your attempt to make mutable, historically conditioned teachings like teachings about who may or may not be ordained into litmus tests of authentic Catholicity, since we recognize that this is not what Catholic identity is all about, in its core definition. And we’ll continue to point out that the vision of life in the reign of God that Jesus set before his followers was one of radical egalitarianism. And that this vision of radical egalitarianism must always norm our life in Christian community and the ecclesiology of a church that is rooted in the gospels and faithful to the memory of Jesus transmitted in our eucharistic celebrations, teachings, and tradition.
Looks like Vatican II is finally a dead letter for you guys. Funny how quickly Lumen gentium and Gaudium et Spes became obsolete for some.
You’re so right, Rick. The Catholic church today would be a far healthier institution if the documents of Vatican II had not proven to be a “dead letter” to the top leaders of the Catholic church in recent decades. It’s extremely ironic that those Catholics who are now accused of turning their back on church teaching are seeking to defend documents promulgated by the last ecumenical council of the church–that is, by all the bishops of the church gathered in a council–against a handful of powerful church leaders who have turned their back on those documents.
Bill,
Tell me one instance of when the Vatican has exercised power over you such that it changed your behavior.
David, I can understand why, as a white, heterosexual, married male you are not able to see the considerable power the Vatican exercises in defining (and, often, harming) those who are not the pinnacle of creation, as you yourself are.
What is rather difficult for me to understand is how those steeped in a religious tradition whose chief ideal is love for others cannot–so it often seems–develop the empathy one would expect to flow from such a religious ideal.
So that, in terms of moral development, some of those steeped in this religious tradition are at a level of moral maturity akin to the pre-moral consciousness of children, while not a few people without these religious ideals exhibit moral maturity and compassion far in excess of that shown, in many cases, by their religious counterparts.
Bill,
I don’t understand your response. Is the power that the Vatican has over you supposed to be self-evident but I can’t see it because I am a heterosexual and married? How does the Vatican change your behavior or exercise control over your life?
David, do the names Jeannine Gramick, John McNeill, Robert Nugent, James Alison, David Berger, Roy Bourgeois, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, Roger Haight, William M. Morris, Carmel McEnroy, Jon Sobrino, Tissa Balisuirya, Ivone Gebara, Raymond Hunthausen, Pedro Casaldáliga, Hans Küng, Leonardo Boff, Jacques Pohier, Edward Schillebeeckx, Anthony Kosnik, Gustavo Guttiérez, Mary Agnes Mansour, Ernesto Cardenal, or Jacques Gaillot mean nothing to you?
If they don’t, and you still don’t see the point I’m making in response to your question about how, precisely, the Vatican and its decisions affect me and many other Catholics, I can add many more names to that list.
What a powerful, inspiring list. Just contemplating it drives home the message, that if you wish to be a true follower of the crucified master, you will most likely find yourself opposed by official authority in the Roman Catholic Church (the bottom 1%). An oversimplification perhaps, a sobering thought certainly, but true nonetheless. Bishop Pedro Casadaliga, what a heroic figure. And Dom Helder Camara as well. Such names, such witness, such opposition.
Jayden, thanks. Yes, it sort of takes the breath away, doesn’t it, to read a list like this, of those powerful, prophetic, much-needed voices that the Vatican has silenced, smothered, driven from the church under the last two papacies. And what makes the heart even heavier and the breath even less easy to draw in is that these are just a few of the names of those who have been directly attacked and punished by the Vatican.
For being faithful to their vocations. For speaking the truth in love. For following the Spirit’s leading to ask questions and stir faithful dialogue in the church.
There are many, many more whose vocations have been undermined and attacked in more indirect ways by the Vatican in the same period–theologians in Catholic universities everywhere in the world, where a deliberate chill was introduced in the 1990s with the mandatum and Ex corde ecclesiae. And women who have discerned a calling to ordination, and all those wishing to continue that Spirit-inspired discussion in our church.
And gay and lesbian Catholics, whose very worth as human beings has been under siege by the Vatican since Ratzinger published his 1986 document on the “pastoral” care of homosexual persons, which introduced the baleful, cruel terminology of intrinsic disorder to define the very personhood of those whom God makes gay or lesbian.
I wish so much that those who imagine the Vatican has no effect on the lives of both Catholics and non-Catholics, and that it can never do harm, could have attended the conference I attended soon after that document came out in 1986, in which a therapist dealing with adolescents told the conference she sat on the floor and cried when she read the document. Because she knew how much harder it would make the lives of young gay people who had sought her out as a therapist. And how many suicides it would cause.
Jayden,
Could you explain yourself further? I don’t know these people, nor do I know why they should be considered heroes. Are they martyrs? Have they performed miracles? Did they feed the poor over Vatican opposition?
David, you’ve addressed Jayden though I posted that list of names that you don’t know–astonishingly.
You ask if these people are martyrs. Yes, each of them is quite definitely a μάρτυς.
And, as you say, many of them did quite definitely seek to feed the poor, until Vatican opposition shut them down in that ministry.
Bill,
Can you tell me what Vatican has done to you or these people to control your life or your behavior?
David, I invite you to learn something about the people whose names I listed.
And when you’ve finished with that list, I’ll keep supplying them.
We can talk productively after you educate yourself. Okay?
Bill,
I was hoping that you would educate me. I read some of the biographies on Wikipedia. For the most part, it sounds as if the names you recite had disputes with the Vatican regarding what should be the Catholic teaching. I don’t see how that automatically qualifies them for hero status.
Let’s use Charles Curran as an example. The man was teaching at a Catholic University. He could not have expected to keep his job while espousing theological perspectives outside of the generally accepted Catholic doctrine. He was opening defying his employer(s) on the very thing that he hired to do.
David, I wouldn’t presume to try to educate you. I assume you’re perfectly capable of doing that yourself. As you yourself point out, there’s a wealth of information online to educate you about what the Vatican has done for some years now to some people, and how it has affected those people.
And what’s the point of our having a conversation about these matters until you’re informed? As an attorney, you can appreciate that, if someone wants to give testimony in the courtroom–as you do about the Vatican, though you yourself admit you have hardly any information about the issue re: which you’re giving testimony–the witness will be asked about the soundness of his/her information.
Please educate yourself, David. Then perhaps we can have a meaningful adult conversation about these issues. My approach to adult education has always been to assume other adults are capable of educating themselves, and to encourage them to do so.
Bill,
i was giving my own personal testimony regarding the value of the Vatican to me.
David, your question to which I was responding was, “Can you tell me what Vatican has done to you or these people to control your life or your behavior?”
If you don’t know who “these people” are, how on earth can we have an intelligent or productive conversation about the issues you’re asking me to address?
We’d be talking about what you imagine or assume the Vatican is and does. Not what it actually has done to a group of church members under the last two papacies.
Bill,
You could relate to me your personal experiences of how the Vatican has affected your life.
My own experience is that I appreciate that the Catholic Church has a central administrative authority, especially when is comes to the Church’s primary duties of charity, teaching, and administering the sacraments. I prefer to see all the good that comes from Rome rather than harp upon my personal differences with teachings I may not fully understand.
I have little sympathy for those who are employed by the Church publicly dissenting from the Church, or even being openly defiant, and then claiming harm when they are terminated. If Charles Curran wants to spout his own brand of theology, more power to him. But, he should not think that he can do it on my dime.
David, I’m amazed.
You’re a lawyer, I think. And you want me to answer a question which requires evidence if the discussion is to have any meaning at all. You’ve asked me how the Vatican has in any way affected or harmed me or others.
I provide abundant evidence to get the ball rolling. You then tell me you can’t really discuss that evidence, since you know nothing about the long list of names I offered you to as evidence to get the discussion going–and to ground it in reality, and not what you “feel” about the Vatican. Or what I feel about it.
And now you tell me that we should talk about your “own experience” of the Vatican.
In what way is that pertinent at all? In what way does it even begin to answer the question you say you want to discuss–namely, what evidence does anyone have to offer that the Vatican can be harmful to anyone?
Offered evidence, you say you can’t or won’t discuss it. Your tactic–and surely this would be immediately laughed out of a courtroom–is simply to dismiss it, to pretend it’s not there.
Please begin educating yourself, so that discussion of these issues (which I’m happy to continue, once you’re informed about the topic at hand) can be meaningful, and not just a swapping of your feelings vs. mine. Once you’ve educated yourself about that particular list of names, as I’ve told you, I have longer lists to offer you–drawn, as the preceding list is, from the last two papacies.
And then we’ll see whether the evidence shows that the Vatican can or cannot affect the lives of real human beings–and often, in highly deleterious, unjust, and unChristian ways.
Bill,
How about if we discuss just one person who has been adversely affected by the Vatican? Given that you don’t want to talk about you or me, let’s talk about Charles Curran.
David, I’ve always been of the opinion (and I understood this from my father, who was a lawyer who enjoyed arguing cases in the courtroom, and amassing evidence), that one accumulates as much evidence as possible in a pro-con case. Otherwise, one is 1) ignoring the significant weight of a body of accumulated evidence, and this assures that one’s decision about the issue being controverted is uninformed, and 2) one is tempted to skew one’s analysis through a personalization of the evidence, because it’s slight.
You asked how the Vatican has affected anyone at all. And how the Vatican may have done so adversely.
I pointed you to a large body of evidence that begins to show you an answer to your question. I have also told you I have much more evidence and will gladly proffer those names once you’ve informed yourself about the ones I’ve given you already. I am deliberately restricting my evidence to the last two papacies.
And you want–for reasons that seem entirely strange to me–to set aside all the evidence for which your own question begs? And focus on what you feel and/or one case among a whole list of cases?
Why?
Bill,
You have offered a list of names – this isn’t evidence. It is a supposed list of witnesses without any proffering of what testimony they would provide. You refuse to proffer your own testimony, listen to my testimony, or even speculate upon what any of your witnesses would say if called to testify.
If you told me what the testimony would be, I might agree with you. But, I cannot agree that your list of names proves your point that the Vatican is repressive. On the few names that I researched, I did not find any evidence of unjust discrimination.
I see, David. We’re going to go there again.
We’re going to play that dysfunctional game again. You ask for evidence. I offer it, in abundance.
And then you inform me that the evidence isn’t evidence.
May I respectfully say that for someone for whom the word “truth” looms so large, in religious terms, you seem to have quite an aversion to it?
Once again: I’m willing to continue this discussion when you’re willing to educate yourself. To grow up and become an adult in an adult conversation.
Until then, I just don’t have time for the going-nowhere game-playing.
Bill,
I don’t know those people.
Thank you, David.
Bill,
I am not sure what to say. I know that you have a firmly held conviction that the Vatican is oppressing those people whom you have cited. However, I don’t see how calling me names furthers your case. I am unwilling to be offended by your comments. You and I are part of one Church. We can do better.
David, sigh.
Again:
What earthly use is to be found in your and my chatting about our “convictions”? You asked me a question about how the Vatican has affected real human beings.
I offered you evidence to ground a meaningful conversation.
You replied that you had no idea what the evidence signified.
You then asked that we throw out the evidence and focus–again!–on how you and I “feel” about these matters.
When I refused that meaningless conversation, you then cavalierly ruled out all my evidence by declaring through your fiat that it’s not evidence.
I repeat again: what kind of meaningful conversation can we have if you 1) don’t know what we’re talking about and won’t try to educate yourself, and 2) it’s merely an exchange about your convictions as opposed to mine?
And how is asking that you grow up and educate yourself in order to have meaningful adult conversations name-calling? This is a challenge I keep issuing to myself throughout life, just as I have always issued it to the adult learners I have taught in the classroom.
Bill,
Rather than giving me a list of names, could you provide me with some other references that help me understand the Vatican’s oppression? Because frankly, I do not see it as a significant part of most Catholics’ lives.
Thanks, David. I appreciate the invitation.
But I’ll pass.
I put those names on the table to reply to the question you asked me. To provide evidence . . . .
My understanding of how proper and ethical legal processes work is that those committed to getting to the truth seek the best, most relevant evidence they can find. They then present it.
It’s then discussed and analyzed, and people try to ascertain the truth.
Discounting the evidence, setting it on the side, looking for evidence that suits our preconceived notions and the points we have decided to prove in lieu of looking for the truth: that just doesn’t make sense to me.
Not from a legal standpoint.
Certainly not from a moral standpoint.
Bill,
I was attracted to Open Tabernacle because it offers a perspective that I don’t encounter often. Having a different viewpoint challenges my faith, and I believe, makes me a better Catholic and Christian. My interest, I can assure you, is not to win an argument, but to discern the truth, and the Spirit, by engaging from an uncomfortable or unfamiliar position.
One thing that I don’t like on Open Tabernacle is the constant anti-Vatican bashing on almost any topic. It is NOT a theology. It is a philosophy, and a bad one at that. Often the anti-Vatican rants are neither consistent nor clear. Sometimes, it is just the politics of power. Unfortunately, sometimes it is simply misrepresents the doctrine or dogma of the Church.
I am willing to keep open the possibility that the names you have given me represent something, if nothing other than your belief that these people were oppressed by the Vatican. But, those names don’t convince me that the Vatican is oppressing me (or you).
I like Terry’s writings and his approach in coming to terms with the hierarchy of the Church. I don’t agree with it; but, I can see a genuine and sincere struggle to grapple with the Vatican without trying to convince me that I am (or your are) being oppressed.
Mark,
While he does not present it directly, the larger question presented by Terry is, “What is the Vatican’s proper role in the Catholic Church?”. I would be interested in hearing your opinion.
For my part, I can bear witness to the value of the Vatican in strengthening my faith, However, I have had little success in conveying the light of the Vatican to others.
It seems to me that the primary value of the Vatican lies in its teaching authority in a negative sense, rather than a positive sense. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that the primary value of reason lies not in its ability to form new propositions and principles, but in its ability to ensure that the propositions and principles asserted neither assert too much nor too little.
I remember an argument that I had with a colleague regarding the American invasion of Iraq. I informed him that we had a common heritage as Catholics, and that the invasion did not satisfy the principles of the Catholic principles of a just war, For that reason, Pope John Paul II condemned the war. His condemnation proved prophetic.
I appreciate that the Vatican is willing to take principled stances on societal issues. It helps frame the issues into the relevant theological context. I do not feel intimidated nor oppressed. The Vatican has no army, charges no taxes, and has no heavenly authority over me.
I would be interested in your opinion.
My view of the pastors of the Church – wherever they are located – is this:
Imagine an inverted pyramid. The base, the wisest part is at the top. The point is at the bottom. It moves from most important to least important. The layers are:
– The “laos tou theo” – The People of God. This is actually the best name for the whole pyramid, so I’ll call this top 99% of my upside-down pyramid “the laity,” including all religious who are not clerics.
– Clerics, the bottom 1% of The People of God.
– Deacons
– Priests
– Bishops
– The Apostolic See and its various dicasteries, departments & flunctionaries, aka “the bottom 1% of the Clerics.”
– The Roman Pontiff.
The whole People of God share one Faith, one Baptism and one Lord, Jesus. This Faith is not imposed from above. It is shared by all. However, different people have different intellectual, spiritual, and emotional capacities. Different strengths & weaknesses.
Sometimes the way forward in Faith is not clear. At best, the clergy are a coach that helps one clarify the basic principals of practice so my way forward is more clear. It’s up to me to select that way and take it. Ultimately I am responsible for my choices, which I hope to make in Faith under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit that was the core of Jesus own practice.
The whole purpose of leadership in the Roman Catholic Church is to provide, as a ministry of service, not mind control & the promotion of subservience, decision support for people when the need it. That’s it. I don’t live my life on every word any Pope says – that’s ridiculous. The Pope is my brother in Christ with a particular way to be of service. When Pope Benedict has something to say that applies to my situation, I try at least to hear those words and see how they apply to me. Maybe those words apply, maybe not.
The reason there’s not (I hope) the slightest fraction of an inch between my Faith and Benedict’s Faith is that we, together & separately, “hold and teach the Catholic Faith as it comes to is from the Apostles” (as Eucharistic Prayer I, the Roman Canon, says). It’s not because (not shouting, just caps for emphasis) ANYONE IS IMPOSING ANYTHING ON ME FROM ABOVE.
If people don’t like the teaching coming from the Vatican, it’s because the teaching coming from the Vatican is different than their particular beliefs. How I (or anyone) recognizes and negotiates those differences in belief is up to me.
– Maybe I stay Roman Catholic and hold my doubts in suspension.
– Maybe I stay Roman Catholic and continue to clarify what the Church believes & teaches and what I believe & teach, and minimize the distance & difference between the two.
– Maybe that distance & difference shrink, maybe it widens, maybe both over the course of my life.
– Maybe I leave for another Christian community and repeat the process there.
– Maybe (as i did) I quit Christianity entirely for Zen Buddhism, and then come back. Who knows, maybe I’ll do that again.
In all this I don’t expect or demand that the Roman Church or it’s Pontiff change their belief, teaching or practice to suit me. I perceive myself to be no better than Simon of Cyrene on his worst day than any kind of pinnacle of male, straight, white privilege. After 8 years of parenting, 26 years of work, and 28 years of marriage, I’m a donkey, a source of income & labor for those I love, nothing more.
I like this a lot Mark. I could see a great deal of my own struggle in what you write.
I stay because of all the religious and spiritual events I’ve participated in from so many different traditions, the Mass is still the most powerful psychic/spiritual event I have ever encountered. And I have encountered some mind blowing things in other traditions.
Unfortunately over the centuries Catholicism has taken on a few too many accretions to effectively represent the active face of Jesus to the world. Way too much mundane worldly corruption and way too much male preference. It is, to use JPII”s concepts, not very complimentary in a gender sense. Catholicism is hardly alone in this dysfunction. I just think it should be leading the way out of it, not bringing up the rear. And as far as the corruption thing goes, I can not for the life of me understand why conservatives aren’t throwing hissy fits over this issue. It has zero to do with dogma or doctrine, but apparently everything to do with the unexamined conditioning of all that dogma and doctrine.
Mark, the inverted pyramid analysis you use here has made eminent sense to me ever since Monika Hellwig began writing about this topic several decades ago. This analysis breaks down, however, when the papacy does not, in fact, function as you rightly say it’s intended to function: as a ministry of service serving the unity of the entire church. The analogy breaks down when the papacy functions, instead, as a dictator-policeman inverting and dominating the pyramid from the top down, imposing its viewpoints on the body of Christ–even when the sensus fidelium moves quite strongly in a direction opposite to that which the papacy wishes to take, for the church as a whole.
Since the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, the teaching of the magisterium has simply ignored the sensus fidelium on matters of sexual morality and re: the biologistic natural-law basis of magisterial teaching about sexual morality. In fact, to be precise, the choice of the papacy to ignore this conflict between magisterial teaching and the sensus fidelium predates Humanae Vitae; the encyclical is the result of a process of study and dialogue that was commissioned by the papacy precisely because there was growing evidence that a large majority of Catholics rejected papal teaching about issues of sexual morality. When he received the recommendations of the papal commission he struck to advise him, Paul VI chose to ignore the recommendation of the commission–to ignore the sensus fidelium–and he issued Humanae Vitae, dramatically deepening the crisis in which the church finds itself now vis-a-vis the disconnect between what it proclaims and what Catholics actually believe and practice in the area of sexual morality.
Under the last two papacies, the question of women’s ordination has similarly been arbitrarily closed–from the top, by the dictator-policeman pope who is not functioning as a servant of the unity of the whole church as he imposes his arbitrary views on the entire church, in the name of an infallible teaching that has never, in fact, been declared infallible.
And so the situation in which many Catholics today find ourselves is this, as Matthew Fox noted recently at the American Catholic Council: we have faithfully followed the teaching of Vatican II, which opened significant doors to reform in the church, only to see the last two papacies close those doors and, in key respects, nullify the last ecumenical council held by the church.
For many of us, the crisis in which we find ourselves stems not from a lack of concordance between what we hold as Catholics and what we’re told by the papacy to hold. It stems from the way in which the last two papacies have abrogated the teachings of an ecumenical council, producing, as Matthew Fox argues, a situation of schism in the church in which the papacy actually moves against the teaching of an ecumenical council.
For many of us, at a broader level, the emphases of some current papal teachings–the closing of women’s ordination to all discussion is a case in point–militates against the very foundations of our faith, as we read the gospels. When we read the gospels, we encounter the teaching and example of a Jesus who points to the radical equality of all human beings in the reign of God. To the radical equality of men and women, gay and straight, black and white, Jew and Gentile.
And many of us are now left, as a result, with questions about how to maintain our fidelity to the gospels themselves, to Jesus himself, while accepting teachings imposed on us from above by the dictator-policeman pope–teachings that have nothing at all to do with the core of our faith, but which reiterate historically conditioned and mutable judgments of the church about how to order this or that aspect of its life.
These teachings also happen to privilege those heterosexual men who consistently defend them as part of the core of the deposit of faith, by the way. And so your analogy breaks down when those heterosexual men do not admit the privilege they enjoy in the church as things are currently configured, and when they do not see or admit that the primary reason they cannot see “the slightest fraction of an inch” their faith and the pope’s is that the arbitrary decisions made by the dictator-policeman papacy continue to uphold their heterosexual male power and privilege in the Catholic church as it’s now configured. It’s fatuous, not very honest, and certainly not helpful–for the purposes of meaningful discussion–for heterosexual males in the Catholic church to keep pretending that this is not the case. And that it does not matter in these discussions.
We may, indeed, all be donkeys. But in the real world barnyard of the church as it now exists, some donkeys are decidedly more equal than other donkeys (and all jacks always trump all jennies).
Mark,
Thank you for your detailed response.
For me, I no longer believe that my relationship to the Catholic Church is a marriage of convenience. It is, for me, a sacramental vow with the 99% of the people of the Church, the 1% of the clergy, and the “being” which is named “the Church”.
I am torn on this one. Sometimes I think the only way the Vatican will give us respect is if we threaten to form a North American Catholic Church and yet I don’t want to leave the Vatican even more firmly in the hands of the uber-orthodox.
Frank,
Who is “us” and “we”?
It seems to me that the common theology uniting the “North American” Catholic Church is a dislike of the Vatican. If a “North American” Church were to form, it would undoubtedly split and fracture many more times before taking its final form. That would be a greater tragedy than our present situation which allows us to be united with all Catholics throughout the world.
I think that it is fair to say that even though a significant portion of American and European Catholics disagree with the Vatican, that most of those who disagree with the Vatican do not agree on the source of the disagreement. I think that it is also fair to say that the vast majority of Catholics are in agreement with the the Vatican on a substantial majority of its doctrines and practices.
I would much prefer Terry’s approach to remaining Catholic.