Surprise! There is still life at the Vatican. The institutional Church is still breathing. Someone in Rome continues to actually think. While one would not consider the Church to have suddenly become a dynamic organism, at least there appears to be a flicker of life. The latest word from the Vatican on receiving Anglican communities into the Church represents potentially the most significant move in the life of the Church since Pope John XXIII flew open the windows of the Vatican and called for the Second Vatican Council.
Let me hasten to add lest there be any confusion, the new move also points to several negative issues. The Vatican's actions raise major concerns which will be addressed in some detail below. Yet in terms of what it could portend for the future it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
While we know very little about the details of this latest Vatican move, we do know that it creates a new structure within the Church. It is of course not really a new rite like one of the uniate eastern rite churches. Instead it is known as an ordinariate, akin to the military ordinariate which serves all of our men and women in the armed services. Anglicans interested in joining the Catholic Church will be able to join as it were en masse. They can retain their liturgy, customs, and probably even their heirarchy. The ordinariate to be established will be separate from our current diocesan structure. It will have its own leadership and will not report to any diocesan bishop. Married Episcopal clergy can continue serving as priests in this new ordinariate.
We are of course still waiting for the Apostolic Constitution which is a papal document that will provide the details of how this ordinariate will operate. There is little doubt that the Vatican will attempt to make the structure as narrow as possible so as not to engender more change to the Roman Rite than it intends. However, even if they are successful in doing so initially, it is likely that changes will occur over time, and the ordinariate structure offers within itself the possibility of some intriguing developments.
Certainly, a major issue for the Church here has to be that of a married clergy. We know that the history of the Church has included a married clergy during much of its 2000 year history. Less known is that the Church currently has married priests. There are Eastern Rite communities in union with Rome that have and have always had married clergy. There are also about 200 former Episcopalian and Lutheran clergy who have been accepted into the Roman Catholic Church in this country and are serving as married clergy today. If indeed there is an influx of Anglican communities in this country and other countries who operate with an existing married clergy it will represent a major change in the operation of the Church. Only time can tell what it means. At a minimum, however, it will provide a place for priests who want to get married to continue their priesthood while remaining faithful to the Church. There could be added pressure if there were significant numbers of priests who wanted to join the new church structure. It could provide an opening to more married priests even within the Roman Rite.
Additionally, it is possible that entire parishes within the Roman Rite might prefer the Anglican or Episcopal tradition and choose to affiliate with an Anglican community. It actually provides the opportunity for some of the diversity I have been speaking about in earlier blogs. Movement between the Roman Rite and this new ordinariate could provide choices that would make it possible for Catholic and Episcopal communities to adapt religious and liturgical practices to fit the worshipping needs of their community. While it is certainly not simple, you could almost choose what liturgical tradition you wanted to join. Those who prefer a return to a Mass closer to the traditional Latin Mass might be able to do that while allowing other catholic communities the option of maintaining and even updating further the Mass as it is currently offered in Churches around the country.
Let's take a look at some of the real negatives to what Rome has decided to do. These negatives exist both within and outside the Church. From within the Church one has to ask why we can reward outsiders with special privleges and yet have nothing to offer our own people. Marriage is permitted for clergy coming into the Church, but our own clergy, some of whom have served the Church faithfully for many years, are not permitted any options and are cast aside and turned away if they have chosen to enter the married state.
Of even greater concern is what it tells us about how the institutional church continues to operate. The Church essentially snubs its nose at the Anglican community and its leadership and provides a haven for any disaffected members. It has basically set out to raid another denomination. Specifically, the Anglican community is a denomination with which Rome has carried out good faith ecumenical dialogue seeking greater understanding and unity. Never mind what this recent decision means for the larger goal of working together as fellow Christians to respect and encourage one another in the faith. It is also striking that the Church found no way to help protect young boys from being molested by its own clergy, but when it came to gathering new converts and perhaps additional resources, church buildings etc, suddenly the Vatican was able to find creative and progressive means to enable something in its own self interest to proceed. Even worse it appears that communities are being rewarded specifically because of their stance on gay marriage and women priests. Trampling on the civil rights of others is not a particularly good way to enhance one's own image of a community of the Gospel.
On balance then this move by Rome is a difficult one to characterize. It is troubling to see the Church move in opportunistic fashion to lay claim to members of a collegial community. Boldly intruding on the internal matters of an ecclesial group with which we have developed cooperative relationships seems shameful in the extreme. It also reflects that continuing clerical imperialism that lets one know that the Church need not abide by what might be considered ordinary rules of decorum and courtesy. Yet, perhaps this may be a case out of which good may come from evil. While we await the details of the new structure, it seems likely that in one way or another the Church may have embarked on a course that will significantly alter its celibate clergy whether that was its original intention or not.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Women in the Church (First in A Series of Blog Entries on Church Related Issues)
A number of reports are currently surfacing on the status of women and American Society. Time magazine's current cover story and Maria Shriver's report for the Center for American Progress are two examples. I wanted to focus more specifically on where women stand within the Roman Catholic religious tradition.
Women religious have always had an active and influential role in the Church. Most of us older Catholics were taught by the nuns at some point in our lives. We often made fun of them and stories abound about how they rapped students' knuckles with rulers etc. Still there is no question that they had enormous influence in the development of generations of Catholics. Despite their efforts they have been undervalued - typically doing much of the work, but not considered when decisions needed to be made. Nuns always defer to the priest, because what would a woman know anyway. When it came to decision making, policy issues, or religious doctrine, women in the Church simply haven't mattered.
I must confess that in my mind there are also some negatives in giving women a greater role in Church leadership. Women in the Church have tended to promote some of the more excessive devotions bordering on superstition such as novenas, first Friday and First Saturday devotions. Many have also latched on to a rigid anti-abortion stance that leaves no room for accepting the fact that other people of good will may have a different view. Yet women in leadership in the Church have demonstrated wisdom, competence as well as many valuable virtues that some would consider feminine. These virtues which are often missing from our male dominated clergy and could provide a valuable counter balance to the operation of our Church might include gentleness, nurturing, compassion, and more open-mindedness.
Women in the United States continue to have many challenges as is pointed out in the reports on women that are currently emerging. Yet there can be no question that the status of women in our country is at a different place than exists in many other countries in the world including many western countries. Women in the US have achieved a level of equality and acceptance that is probably unique. The vast majority of Americans including men now believe that women can do essentially anything men can do and have a right to do it. Basically, it is discrimination pure and simple to say that women are not permitted to exercise certain functions. The denial of priesthood to women is essentially unamerican.
According to Time's "What Women want Now" almost 40% 0f women in the US are now the primary bread winners in the family. Eight in 10 respondents say that mothers are just as productive at work as fathers or childless workers. Husbands and wives negotiate family policies as to who does what to keep the family going according to 84% of those polled. Women serve as financial planners in 64% of homes, and as family accountants in 71% of families. Women also make 75% of the buying decisions. Again, women are clearly in a different place in American society than just about any other country. and what might be customary in other parts of the world does not work for American society. We need a church that is sensitive to the needs of women and the entire Catholic community in the US right now. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter often cites the universality of the Church as a major reason why what Americans want cannot be the norm for Church action. It is time, however, for the US church to quit being denied what it needs to satisfy what might work for other countries in other parts of the world.
Biblical arguments are of course put forward as to why women cannot be ordained priests. A look at scripture tells us that womens' heads should be covered in church. It tells us that women should be obedient to their husbands. Clearly neither of these edicts of Paul are in effect today, and almost all would agree that these kinds of statements are conditioned by the mores of the time in which they were writtten. The notion that we should be held to such standards makes little sense.
The main argument put forward to rule out women priests is that all the Apostles were men. The tradition of the Church rules out the ordination of women. Yet there is clear evidence that women at least served as deacons in the early church, as well as in other positions of authority. Some scholars would go further and put forth evidence of female priests. The truth is it doesn't matter. There is nothing in the new testament that prohibits the ordination of women and the time has come. If Mary can be the Mother of God, surely a woman can preside at the Eucharist. The only impediment really is a 'good old boys network' in Rome who are set in their ways, don't understand societal changes and just like things the way they are - that's not good enough.
To be fair, women certainly have grown in stature in our Church particularly in our country. We do have female theologians, we even have female parish administrators, directors of religious education etc. But if there ever was a glass ceiling it exists in the Church. We are told the Church can't move cause much of the world is not ready for a greater role for women. Yet why should the western world, especially the United States, be prohibited from fulfilling its spiritual needs because others are not ready? We need more diversity in our Church and if countries make different choices why is that a problem?
So what happens now? The times cry out for change. The ranks of the clergy are thinning and are not being replenished with enough young priests. More and more often the faithful will be without access to the sacraments due to a lack of priests. The ongoing sex abuse crisis demands seeking alternatives to the current system.
Many Church issues are interrelated. What prevents us from moving ahead on women's issues is often embedded in church structure. The way decisions are made impacts our ability to make progress. No matter what large percentages of clergy and laity alike in Des Moines might feel, not only are they unempowered to make decisions regarding their needs, there is no forum for them to even voice their concerns. In fact if they should express their concerns, they may well be punished for having the temerity to speak up. That is why I wish to work on a series of articles on church related issues to illustrate how they are interelated and demand forceful action on the part of the Church, meaning Church as the people of God.
Women religious have always had an active and influential role in the Church. Most of us older Catholics were taught by the nuns at some point in our lives. We often made fun of them and stories abound about how they rapped students' knuckles with rulers etc. Still there is no question that they had enormous influence in the development of generations of Catholics. Despite their efforts they have been undervalued - typically doing much of the work, but not considered when decisions needed to be made. Nuns always defer to the priest, because what would a woman know anyway. When it came to decision making, policy issues, or religious doctrine, women in the Church simply haven't mattered.
I must confess that in my mind there are also some negatives in giving women a greater role in Church leadership. Women in the Church have tended to promote some of the more excessive devotions bordering on superstition such as novenas, first Friday and First Saturday devotions. Many have also latched on to a rigid anti-abortion stance that leaves no room for accepting the fact that other people of good will may have a different view. Yet women in leadership in the Church have demonstrated wisdom, competence as well as many valuable virtues that some would consider feminine. These virtues which are often missing from our male dominated clergy and could provide a valuable counter balance to the operation of our Church might include gentleness, nurturing, compassion, and more open-mindedness.
Women in the United States continue to have many challenges as is pointed out in the reports on women that are currently emerging. Yet there can be no question that the status of women in our country is at a different place than exists in many other countries in the world including many western countries. Women in the US have achieved a level of equality and acceptance that is probably unique. The vast majority of Americans including men now believe that women can do essentially anything men can do and have a right to do it. Basically, it is discrimination pure and simple to say that women are not permitted to exercise certain functions. The denial of priesthood to women is essentially unamerican.
According to Time's "What Women want Now" almost 40% 0f women in the US are now the primary bread winners in the family. Eight in 10 respondents say that mothers are just as productive at work as fathers or childless workers. Husbands and wives negotiate family policies as to who does what to keep the family going according to 84% of those polled. Women serve as financial planners in 64% of homes, and as family accountants in 71% of families. Women also make 75% of the buying decisions. Again, women are clearly in a different place in American society than just about any other country. and what might be customary in other parts of the world does not work for American society. We need a church that is sensitive to the needs of women and the entire Catholic community in the US right now. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter often cites the universality of the Church as a major reason why what Americans want cannot be the norm for Church action. It is time, however, for the US church to quit being denied what it needs to satisfy what might work for other countries in other parts of the world.
Biblical arguments are of course put forward as to why women cannot be ordained priests. A look at scripture tells us that womens' heads should be covered in church. It tells us that women should be obedient to their husbands. Clearly neither of these edicts of Paul are in effect today, and almost all would agree that these kinds of statements are conditioned by the mores of the time in which they were writtten. The notion that we should be held to such standards makes little sense.
The main argument put forward to rule out women priests is that all the Apostles were men. The tradition of the Church rules out the ordination of women. Yet there is clear evidence that women at least served as deacons in the early church, as well as in other positions of authority. Some scholars would go further and put forth evidence of female priests. The truth is it doesn't matter. There is nothing in the new testament that prohibits the ordination of women and the time has come. If Mary can be the Mother of God, surely a woman can preside at the Eucharist. The only impediment really is a 'good old boys network' in Rome who are set in their ways, don't understand societal changes and just like things the way they are - that's not good enough.
To be fair, women certainly have grown in stature in our Church particularly in our country. We do have female theologians, we even have female parish administrators, directors of religious education etc. But if there ever was a glass ceiling it exists in the Church. We are told the Church can't move cause much of the world is not ready for a greater role for women. Yet why should the western world, especially the United States, be prohibited from fulfilling its spiritual needs because others are not ready? We need more diversity in our Church and if countries make different choices why is that a problem?
So what happens now? The times cry out for change. The ranks of the clergy are thinning and are not being replenished with enough young priests. More and more often the faithful will be without access to the sacraments due to a lack of priests. The ongoing sex abuse crisis demands seeking alternatives to the current system.
Many Church issues are interrelated. What prevents us from moving ahead on women's issues is often embedded in church structure. The way decisions are made impacts our ability to make progress. No matter what large percentages of clergy and laity alike in Des Moines might feel, not only are they unempowered to make decisions regarding their needs, there is no forum for them to even voice their concerns. In fact if they should express their concerns, they may well be punished for having the temerity to speak up. That is why I wish to work on a series of articles on church related issues to illustrate how they are interelated and demand forceful action on the part of the Church, meaning Church as the people of God.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Our Neighbor to the North
It seems a good time to share some reflections from my recent trip to Canada. First of all, the major issues of the day all seem to be in transition. Although pundits are more than willing to declare failure on everything from health care to Afghanistan, the reality is that the verdict is out and will remain so until these issues play themselves out over time. Also it was a very special trip that deserves some space on this blog.
My wife and I just spent the better part of two weeks driving around eastern Canada. Our visit included Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, and a ski resort in central Ontario. I might add that though we did no skiing we were able to see the beautiful countryside via their ski lift. The fall foilage was splendid, the people were extremely friendly, and the visit offered an opportunity to explore some interesting aspects of our neighbor to the north.
One interesting note is that the headline the day we arrived in Canada was about Roman Catholic Bishop Raymond Lahey of Nova Scotia, who had been arrested in Ottowa for having been found with pornography on his laptop computer. It turns out that Bishop Lahey had just recently been involved in negotiating a sex abuse settlement with a former altar boy in his diocese. Catholics appeared to be outraged, in some cases pointing out that celibacy hsd never worked, is not natural, and mandatory celibacy should be ended. Catholic Bishops for their part seemed to be saying that the answer is simply to ordain holier men to the priesthood.
I thought this story illustrated a couple of important points. It is not only the United States that has such problems, though perhaps our free press tends to give more extensive coverage to such stories. Human nature doesn't really change from place to place, and the Church still doesn't get it. Business as usual continues to be the heirarchical mantra, but this approach will catch up to the Church at some point.
My second reflection has as its focus relationships or interactions between French Canadians and those who speak only English. Many, including those in Ontario, told us that people in Quebec either do not want to or are unable to speak English, and with no knowledge of French we would have difficulty there. This proved not to be true. Everyone we spoke to in Quebec was most polite and helpful. Everyone spoke English to us as soon as they realized we did not know French. Upon discussion one person did tell us they have to speak English on their job, perhaps suggesting some reluctance on her part, but she was fluent in English and was very pleasant in our interactions.
What was interesting was that a number of people we spoke to in Ottawa had never been to French Canada and seemed to have little interest in going there, almost as if it was a separate country and they were quite happy where they were. On the other hand, a number of people in Quebec who spoke English told us they had gone to the Toronto area to study and learn their English. Admittedly these are very superficial observations on the topic but it does seem like the relationships involved are somewhat intriguing and it would be interesting to know more.
Finally, we also had a few, though certainly incomplete conversations regarding health care. Basically, there was clearly an acknowledgement of the fact that the taxes in Canada were considerably higher than here. I did not get the impression that anyone was particularly happy with that fact. Many said they would come to the "states" to make certain purchases. At the same time everyone seemed to accept their health care system as necessary and an important part of their lives. They receive their medical card at birth, and it seems it is pretty much impossible for them to conceive of their lives without this health care coverage. Many wondered how folks can survive without coverage in this country, for example, wondering what would happen to a young girl who is pregnant and had no insurance. For my part I can only say that I had an encounter with their health care system while on my trip and found all the health care officials who treated me to be kind, efficient, and competent.
The bottom line is that I just completed a truly memorable vacation in Canada. I have just touched the surface on a number of intriguing issues, but I would certainly be pleased to pursue any of them in much greater depth. In any case, our trip exceeded all expectations and I have nothing, nor do I have any desire to say anything bad about our neighbor to the north.
My wife and I just spent the better part of two weeks driving around eastern Canada. Our visit included Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, and a ski resort in central Ontario. I might add that though we did no skiing we were able to see the beautiful countryside via their ski lift. The fall foilage was splendid, the people were extremely friendly, and the visit offered an opportunity to explore some interesting aspects of our neighbor to the north.
One interesting note is that the headline the day we arrived in Canada was about Roman Catholic Bishop Raymond Lahey of Nova Scotia, who had been arrested in Ottowa for having been found with pornography on his laptop computer. It turns out that Bishop Lahey had just recently been involved in negotiating a sex abuse settlement with a former altar boy in his diocese. Catholics appeared to be outraged, in some cases pointing out that celibacy hsd never worked, is not natural, and mandatory celibacy should be ended. Catholic Bishops for their part seemed to be saying that the answer is simply to ordain holier men to the priesthood.
I thought this story illustrated a couple of important points. It is not only the United States that has such problems, though perhaps our free press tends to give more extensive coverage to such stories. Human nature doesn't really change from place to place, and the Church still doesn't get it. Business as usual continues to be the heirarchical mantra, but this approach will catch up to the Church at some point.
My second reflection has as its focus relationships or interactions between French Canadians and those who speak only English. Many, including those in Ontario, told us that people in Quebec either do not want to or are unable to speak English, and with no knowledge of French we would have difficulty there. This proved not to be true. Everyone we spoke to in Quebec was most polite and helpful. Everyone spoke English to us as soon as they realized we did not know French. Upon discussion one person did tell us they have to speak English on their job, perhaps suggesting some reluctance on her part, but she was fluent in English and was very pleasant in our interactions.
What was interesting was that a number of people we spoke to in Ottawa had never been to French Canada and seemed to have little interest in going there, almost as if it was a separate country and they were quite happy where they were. On the other hand, a number of people in Quebec who spoke English told us they had gone to the Toronto area to study and learn their English. Admittedly these are very superficial observations on the topic but it does seem like the relationships involved are somewhat intriguing and it would be interesting to know more.
Finally, we also had a few, though certainly incomplete conversations regarding health care. Basically, there was clearly an acknowledgement of the fact that the taxes in Canada were considerably higher than here. I did not get the impression that anyone was particularly happy with that fact. Many said they would come to the "states" to make certain purchases. At the same time everyone seemed to accept their health care system as necessary and an important part of their lives. They receive their medical card at birth, and it seems it is pretty much impossible for them to conceive of their lives without this health care coverage. Many wondered how folks can survive without coverage in this country, for example, wondering what would happen to a young girl who is pregnant and had no insurance. For my part I can only say that I had an encounter with their health care system while on my trip and found all the health care officials who treated me to be kind, efficient, and competent.
The bottom line is that I just completed a truly memorable vacation in Canada. I have just touched the surface on a number of intriguing issues, but I would certainly be pleased to pursue any of them in much greater depth. In any case, our trip exceeded all expectations and I have nothing, nor do I have any desire to say anything bad about our neighbor to the north.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
