I did not intend to write another article on abortion. It is so difficult to write about this topic since no one wants to talk about abortion. Most people interested in this subject simply want and expect everyone to act and think the way they do. I have had many Catholic progressives tell me that I can talk about almost anything, as long as I don't even get close to the topic of abortion. Unfortunately, it seems to me that abortion turns out to be the whole ball of wax. If there can be no discussion on this topic, then we have already ceded the operation of the Church to the more and more conservative American heirarchy. We are saying that they can call the shots. We are deferring to their authority which was in fact the subject of my last blog entry.
I am also forced to broach this topic at this time because of the Bishop's current involvement in the struggle over health care. I have heard many progressives agonize over the involvement of the bishops. These honest souls wonder if they are being hypocritical by wanting the Church involved in social justice issues and issues of war and peace, but are uncomfortable with church involvement on this issue. Let me explain my position as clearly as I know how to both progressives and the conservative bishops.
Catholic theology has always been known for its ability to make distinctions. Scholastic philosophy as espoused by Thomas Aquinas carefully makes important distinctions in its understanding of moral and dogmatic issues. Our Bishops are ignoring that heritage and plowing ahead, obfuscating issues as it suits their purpose. Perhaps they are just plain ignorant of Catholic theology, or perhaps they are just determined to have their way even if it represents faulty thinking. They are advocating for their position, but they are misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Let's explore the distinction between doctrine and politics or legislation.
Current Catholic teaching on abortion is quite clear and has not changed during my lifetime. Some like to point out that church teaching on abortion has not always been what it is now. That is interesting, but I don't think it is that relevant to the situation today. The Church clearly teaches that abortion is always wrong, even to save the life of the mother. That's pretty unequivocal and leaves essentially no wiggle room.
The politics and the legislative issues involved in the abortion debate, however, are another matter altogether. Let's just start with the obvious. No bill that I know of that is part of the bishop's political agenda bans abortion even if the life of the mother is in danger. Just on that one point we see that there is wiggle room in the legislative area. If that is so, can one say for example, that if you believe that legislation should also have an exception for the health of the mother, that you can be denied communion? The Bishops are treading on very thin ground when the issue is politics and legislation. While the Church can state what it believes about faith and moral issues and expect assent, it is another matter to say what legislation in these areas should look like. That is and should be the role of politicians and the consensus of the community.
Yet, it is precisely the legislative arena where the battle of abortion is being fought. The current amendment the American Bishops are demanding be included in the health care bill includes exceptions for rape and incest as well as to save the life of the mother. That does not represent Catholic moral teaching that we have just enunciated. Clearly, moral teaching and legislation are two different things. Bishops can insist on moral teaching, they cannot demand adherence to a specific legislative approach.
You might say that the Church and Church leaders have every right to engage in the political arena, and I would basically agree with that position. Those Catholics who recall Church involvement in Civil Rights and other social justice issues are instinctively correct when they are uncomfortable with saying the Church should stay out of politics. The problem, however, is that if you are going to play politics in this country you have to play by certain rules. The Church has every right to lobby for its position as does every other person and group in this country. They must recognize, however, that once they enter that realm they are functioning as any other group. They have a right to be heard, but they have no right to impose their will on the community, or leverage their power to get what they want. Their legislative position represents just one possible approach to dealing with a complex problem. Do they need to be reminded that everyone in this country is not Catholic and does not accept or need to accept whatever position the Church puts forward? To expect every Catholic legislator to adopt the Church's legislative position in every instance negates entirely the role of legislator. People make such decisions for various reasons, and religious beliefs is only one of those reasons.
The notion that Church leaders can blackmail Catholics or Catholic politicians to fall in line with their political agenda bespeaks the old ways of Catholic Europe. In Ireland or Italy or other such countries the Church may have been able to force its will on the politicians, but this is not Europe. Even in Europe their power is waning. No one can prevent a bishop from denying communion to a politician or telling his flock that they will be guilty of serious sin if they support particular legislation. Bishops may be able to do that. But they will also be wrong. Legislation goes through a process of compromise and determining what is possible. It represents the recognition of all points of view within a pluralistic society. Politicians have to develop legislation that meets the needs of all peoples.
Again the Church can push for any legislation it deems appropriate, but politicians, Catholic or not, must exercise their consiences and their political skills to craft legislation for all. No bishop can or should attempt to compell a politician to take the bishop's legislative lead. In doing so the Bishops seek to kill the whole idea of a marketplace of ideas for forging consensus. This is a democracy, so I say to the bishops, back off. Even if you win any temporary victories, over time you will have done harm to yourselves and the Church. You will have further damaged your credibility and lessened any meaningful influence you might have on the community at large.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Authority in the Church (3rd in a series of Church related issues)
Authority or the defiance of authority is certainly a favorite topic of mine. I could write volumes on this particular topic. Suffice it to say, I don't have much use for authority. So if this article seems somewhat biased and anti-authority, it's probably because it is. Oh, I'm sure there is a legitimate role for authority figures, I just haven't figured out yet what it might be. I do know that during my years in the seminary I was taught that the very worst argument one can use to prove your point is an argument from authority, eg. 'the bishops said'. I heartily concur.
The Church is a heirarchical institution and would appear to have a legitimate claim to exercise authority through the episcopate. The New Testament certainly references 'episkopoi' or bishops who seem to legitimately exercise authority. Yet it is also clear that this authority was not absolute. The Apostle Paul had no trouble rebuking Peter, ostensibly the first Pope, and even prevailing in his arguments about the Church's mission to the gentiles.
While in general someone needs to be in charge in any institution, the Church also manifests a very egalitarian structure at the New Testament level. From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that all goods were held in common among early Christian communities. Paul speaks of various charisms within the community, so that each member was valued and had something to offer. The Second Vatican Council stressed concepts of collegiality and the Church as the People of God, ie. the Church being not just the Bishops and heirarchy, but all of us being Church. A lot of bishops today would like to pretend these concepts don't exist, but just because a Bishop may have the power to refuse communion to members of the people of God does not mean this is not an abuse of power.
Church leadership in recent years has incrasingly been guilty of abuse of power. Abuse of power is a serious offense because of the imbalance between the heirarchy and those of us in the pews. We often hear that the Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorial repressive regime. Bishops are expected to exercise pastoral leadership. There are clearly some Bishops who need to ask the question as to whether their actions are truly representative of the way Jesus would exercise leadership.
Even conservatives don't practice or subscribe to blind obedience. We know that many feel free to ignore the Church's position on capital punishment or its current understanding of the just war theory. The social justice teachings of the Church are similarly ignored. I know a very active member of the Church whose religious philosophy is to the right of Archbishop Burke, the former head of the St. Louis Archdiocese, but she certainly doesn't follow a conventional philosophy of blind obedience. She actually delights in challenging priests and even Bishops if she does not believe in the rightness of what they are doing. Is it only progressives who must blindly adhere to their religious superiors? It certainly makes life easier if everybody simply follows the leader. it is unquestionably a much messier Church if we actually are expected to listen to each other, but it does have the advantage of valuing all its members. Pray pay and obey is just not good enough. Church leaders need to be challenged in every aspect of church governance.
The Church is not the only organization that emphasizes the need for strong discipline. The military and the FBI would be two examples. In fact years ago the FBI actively sought ex-seminarians to enter the bureau because they knew their training in discipline and obedience were similar to that of the bureau. And isn't that the point? Does the Church really see itself as a military organization? Even soldiers have had to learn that they can be liable for following unjust orders. The notion that personal consience and thought should cease with the publication of Humani Generis or the Pope announcing that there can be no further discussion on women priests or mandatory celibacy flies in the face of the world we live in. It might make life easier, but church leaders are going to have to recognize that ideas come from throughout the Church. Lay people are part of the Church too, and as an educated community have a stake in the future of the church.
Primacy of consience is actually a Catholic tradition embedded in the documents of Vatican II. The Declaration on Religious Liberty adopted from the writings of American theologian John Courtney Murray attests to a Catholic's obligation to follow his or her individual consience. Why then are Bishops denouncing individual Catholics for doing so? Again, church leaders would like to pretend that this is not part of the legacy of the Church but it is. The Church has made clear that you must follow your own consience. That consience is to be formed by Church teaching, but that does not mean that a Bishop can say that if your consience disagrees with Church teaching that it is a faulty consience. As Americans living in a pluralistic society we have a point of view that is sometimes not shared by Rome. Maybe it is Rome that needs to listen to us, just as they did at Vatican II. America has something to offer the Universal Church, even if Rome has determined to dilute American thought by appointing Bishops in this country who are sworn to do Rome's bidding in all things.
As in any strong organization, those with power hold the cards. If Church leaders want to be repressive they can. They can stifle the faithful, punish politicians and others. Lay people and simple clerics are at their mercy. Rome and the bishops can continue to move the Church down a dismal path until finally the spirit moves them and change comes to the Church as it did with Vatican II. This is precisely why I said at the beginning that abuse of power is such a serious sin. By its very nature it implies that there is really nothing a victim can do about it. The victim of abuse, as in the sexual abuse crisis is at the mercy of the one exercising power. That is why he who has the power has the greater sin. But this too shall pass.
The Church is a heirarchical institution and would appear to have a legitimate claim to exercise authority through the episcopate. The New Testament certainly references 'episkopoi' or bishops who seem to legitimately exercise authority. Yet it is also clear that this authority was not absolute. The Apostle Paul had no trouble rebuking Peter, ostensibly the first Pope, and even prevailing in his arguments about the Church's mission to the gentiles.
While in general someone needs to be in charge in any institution, the Church also manifests a very egalitarian structure at the New Testament level. From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that all goods were held in common among early Christian communities. Paul speaks of various charisms within the community, so that each member was valued and had something to offer. The Second Vatican Council stressed concepts of collegiality and the Church as the People of God, ie. the Church being not just the Bishops and heirarchy, but all of us being Church. A lot of bishops today would like to pretend these concepts don't exist, but just because a Bishop may have the power to refuse communion to members of the people of God does not mean this is not an abuse of power.
Church leadership in recent years has incrasingly been guilty of abuse of power. Abuse of power is a serious offense because of the imbalance between the heirarchy and those of us in the pews. We often hear that the Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorial repressive regime. Bishops are expected to exercise pastoral leadership. There are clearly some Bishops who need to ask the question as to whether their actions are truly representative of the way Jesus would exercise leadership.
Even conservatives don't practice or subscribe to blind obedience. We know that many feel free to ignore the Church's position on capital punishment or its current understanding of the just war theory. The social justice teachings of the Church are similarly ignored. I know a very active member of the Church whose religious philosophy is to the right of Archbishop Burke, the former head of the St. Louis Archdiocese, but she certainly doesn't follow a conventional philosophy of blind obedience. She actually delights in challenging priests and even Bishops if she does not believe in the rightness of what they are doing. Is it only progressives who must blindly adhere to their religious superiors? It certainly makes life easier if everybody simply follows the leader. it is unquestionably a much messier Church if we actually are expected to listen to each other, but it does have the advantage of valuing all its members. Pray pay and obey is just not good enough. Church leaders need to be challenged in every aspect of church governance.
The Church is not the only organization that emphasizes the need for strong discipline. The military and the FBI would be two examples. In fact years ago the FBI actively sought ex-seminarians to enter the bureau because they knew their training in discipline and obedience were similar to that of the bureau. And isn't that the point? Does the Church really see itself as a military organization? Even soldiers have had to learn that they can be liable for following unjust orders. The notion that personal consience and thought should cease with the publication of Humani Generis or the Pope announcing that there can be no further discussion on women priests or mandatory celibacy flies in the face of the world we live in. It might make life easier, but church leaders are going to have to recognize that ideas come from throughout the Church. Lay people are part of the Church too, and as an educated community have a stake in the future of the church.
Primacy of consience is actually a Catholic tradition embedded in the documents of Vatican II. The Declaration on Religious Liberty adopted from the writings of American theologian John Courtney Murray attests to a Catholic's obligation to follow his or her individual consience. Why then are Bishops denouncing individual Catholics for doing so? Again, church leaders would like to pretend that this is not part of the legacy of the Church but it is. The Church has made clear that you must follow your own consience. That consience is to be formed by Church teaching, but that does not mean that a Bishop can say that if your consience disagrees with Church teaching that it is a faulty consience. As Americans living in a pluralistic society we have a point of view that is sometimes not shared by Rome. Maybe it is Rome that needs to listen to us, just as they did at Vatican II. America has something to offer the Universal Church, even if Rome has determined to dilute American thought by appointing Bishops in this country who are sworn to do Rome's bidding in all things.
As in any strong organization, those with power hold the cards. If Church leaders want to be repressive they can. They can stifle the faithful, punish politicians and others. Lay people and simple clerics are at their mercy. Rome and the bishops can continue to move the Church down a dismal path until finally the spirit moves them and change comes to the Church as it did with Vatican II. This is precisely why I said at the beginning that abuse of power is such a serious sin. By its very nature it implies that there is really nothing a victim can do about it. The victim of abuse, as in the sexual abuse crisis is at the mercy of the one exercising power. That is why he who has the power has the greater sin. But this too shall pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
