Further to Steve's post of Dec. 8, I am taking it for granted that we affirm that there is such a thing as truth and that we believe that it will set us free. The question, then, is what the Church says about those who through no fault of their own are not in conformity with the truth. Gaudium et spes provides this answer: "Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems. . . . Hence, the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups rurn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct. Yet it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing its dignity." This is good news for the involuntarily erring conscience, I suppose; it does, after all, occur in a document called Gaudium et spes. But the good news does not change the fact that the subjectively innocent conscience at issue remains in error, and, as I mentioned before, that error can lead to ontic harm. But the simple fact of being in error is already somehow to be unfree; the dignity possessed by the involuntarily erroneous conscience beckons onward to the truth. Until his conscience is correct, the person is in some sense perplexus; without the truth, freedom is compromised. What the Church wants for all people is that they be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:4). But why should be look to the Church for the truth in matters of faith and morals? Because the hierarchical teaching office is that of the bishops in communion with the pope; the Second Vatican Council denies, along with the whole tradition, that the laity have the power authoritatively to teach on matters of faith or morals. See Lumen gentium; and Dei verbum 10. According to Vatican I, papal definitions of doctrine are not invalid without the "consent of the Church." See DS 3074 (Which is not to say that sometimes the magisterium is not sometimes moved to use its teaching power in new ways on account of the stimulus of the laity. See J. Robert Dionne, The Papacy and the Church: A Study of Praxis and Reception in Ecumenical Perspective (1987)). But again, why look to the Church? Here Karl Rahner is helpful in preempting a certain regress: "Catholic theology sees and affirms that the institutional element in the Church does not ultimately function on its own. The assurance comes only from the Spirit, who is never simply identified with any institution, and this is the reason why one can rely with confidence on the permanent maintenance of the institution. This is no point, therefore, in arguing against the primacy and against the doctrine given in the Constitution [on the Church, Lumen gentium], on the synondal structure of the Church that it leaves it open to the Pope to do everything autocratically in the end and to exclude the college of of bishops in practice. The simple answer is that he 'can' do so, but he will not. The Catholic does not demand a juridical norm by which the Pope could be impeached, he relies on the power of the grace of God and of the Holy Spirit in the Church . . . ." (1967). Finally, not everything proposed by the Church must be believed by the faithful, of course; the definitions concerning what must be believed by faithful Catholics are important, but for the most part they are overlooked in arguments driven by the desirability of "dissent." Frequently, in my experience, people feel moved to "dissent" from teachings that are not in fact proposed by the Church as part of the deposit of revelation. See canon 750. (As something of a contrarian myself, I see the pleasure in it -- don't get me wrong)! In any event, the obligation of conscience is always to seek the truth and to adhere to it as known. Given the Church's teaching, mentioned above, that the magisterium does not depend upon the laity for the valid exercise of its teaching function, I cannot agree with Steve's aspiration for the Church as a "community of discourse, . . . an ongoing collaborative effort" in search of the truth. Outside the Church, collaboration and discourse seem to be the method by which truth enters. Within the Church, according to the Church, the magisterium does not share its teaching function with the laity (though, as I said above, sometimes the magisterium is moved by the learning of the faithful). According to Lumen gentium (37), the laity "should accept whatever their sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, decree in their role as teachers and rulers of the Church." I do not suggest that this is always easy to do.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Conscience/Dissent, IV
San Bernadino, CA: Who would have thunk it?
I have family in San Bernadino, but I learn of this via Amy Welborn's blog Open Book, which owes it to The Press-Enterprise in San Bernardino, CA:
The Diocese of San Bernardino today will hold what experts say could
be one of the few Roman Catholic heresy trials in U.S. history.
The priest on trial refuses to attend the hearing, which he calls
"medieval and totally un-Christian."
"It's like the Inquisition has returned," said the Rev. Ned Reidy, of
Bermuda Dunes, who also is charged with schism.
The church defines heresy as the denial of a church truth and schism
as the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or church
leaders.
If the diocesan tribunal concludes that Reidy committed heresy and
schism, he will be formally excommunicated from the church -- although
the Vatican believes no one can ever fully lose his priesthood. Heresy
is the same charge that Galileo faced for defying church teaching.
Reidy, 69, does not deny the principal allegations against him: that
he left the Roman Catholic Church for another religion and espouses
teachings that violate church doctrine.
Reidy served 19 years as pastor of Christ of the Desert Roman Catholic
parish in Palm Desert before resigning from the Order of the Holy
Cross in 1999 to join the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, which does
not recognize the Vatican's authority and has beliefs that Reidy said
are more in synch with his own. In 2000, Reidy founded an Ecumenical
Catholic parish in Bermuda Dunes, just east of Palm Desert. It is one
of 18 Ecumenical Catholic parishes nationwide.
The denomination, based in the city of Orange, holds more liberal
views than the Vatican on issues such as divorce, birth control and
homosexuality, and it ordains married, female, divorced and gay
priests.
Reidy was automatically excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church
when he joined the Ecumenical Catholic Communion. The diocese is
holding the heresy and schism trial because some Roman Catholics might
still believe Reidy is a practicing Roman Catholic priest, said the
Rev. Howard Lincoln, spokesman for the diocese. Reidy's current church
is only a few miles from his old Roman Catholic parish, Lincoln said.
"He is still using the term 'Catholic' in quotes, in advertising and
on the Internet," he said. "Because of the confusion in not
differentiating between his church and the Roman Catholic Church, the
diocese felt we must proceed with this official action in order to
make that distinction."
Reidy said he severed his ties to the Roman Catholic Church when he
resigned from his order. The homepage of Reidy's current parish,
Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ, states: "We are a
Non-Roman-Catholic Community."
The diocese issued a letter in April 2000 shortly after Reidy founded
the Pathfinder parish warning Roman Catholics not to attend his
services or retreats. Reidy said several parishioners from his former
Roman Catholic parish, Christ of the Desert, have followed him to
Pathfinder.
The letter states that Roman Catholics who participate in a Mass or
other rites associated with groups such as Ecumenical Catholics would
suffer "serious spiritual harm."
Earlier Trial in Corona
Lincoln said the diocese has held one previous heresy trial. That one
involved the Rev. Anthony Garduno, formerly of St. Edward parish in
Corona.
The diocese held the trial because Garduno in 1996 formed a church in
Corona with beliefs similar to the Ecumenical Catholic Communion.
Garduno left St. Edward after 1993 allegations that he had asked a man
to strip during premarriage counseling.
Although Garduno said there was a church trial against him in 2003, he
insisted it was not for heresy, but for not being in union with the
pope. He said the documents he received in 2003 on the trial did not
mention the word "schism" either.
Garduno said he did not attend the hearing because the diocese no
longer has jurisdiction over him.
Lawrence Cunningham, a professor of theology at the University of
Notre Dame in Indiana and an expert on church history, said he is
unaware of Catholic heresy trials in the United States outside the San
Bernardino diocese. Several other Roman Catholic scholars said they,
too, are unaware of other U.S. trials.
Monsignor Thomas Green, a professor of canon law at The Catholic
University of America in Washington, D.C., said such trials in modern
times are rare worldwide.
"By and large, once you get past the Council of Trent and the 1600s
and 1700s, you don't hear much about it," he said.
Heresy trials can occur at the Vatican or in a diocesan court. Green
said the last time the Vatican itself formally excommunicated a priest
for heresy was in 1997, when the Rev. Tissa Balasuriya of Sri Lanka
was denounced for his views on original sin. Balasuriya later
reconciled with the Vatican.
The one-day closed trial of Reidy is being held today in the Halls of
the Tribunal at the diocese's San Bernardino headquarters. Three
diocesan priests will serve as judges at the trial, which will also
include other diocesan officials. A ruling is expected within several
days, Lincoln said.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which outlines Vatican doctrine,
defines heresy as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth."
Green said that means the rejection of fundamental matters of faith,
such as the Holy Trinity or the virgin birth of Jesus. The catechism
defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff."
In a June 15 document delineating the accusations, Stephen Osborn,
promoter of justice for the diocese, wrote that Reidy committed
"offenses against the Christian faithful by espousing and teaching
matters contrary to divine law and to the universal law of the
Catholic Church."
Among other things, Osborn cites the Ecumenical Catholic church's
refusal to accept the infallibility of the pope, its blessing of
same-sex unions and its ordination of women.
Bishop Peter Hickman, the Ecumenical Catholic denomination's leader,
said the language in Osborn's missive is offensive.
"The cold, mean-spirited tone of the letter makes you think this was
from a few centuries ago," he said.
Lincoln said the letter is worded carefully to be in accordance with canon
law.
Green, the Catholic University canon law expert, said heresy trials
occurred "not infrequently" through the 1600s, although there are no
reliable statistics on the exact number.
Perhaps the most famous heresy trial was the one in 1633 against
Galileo for teaching that the Earth revolves around the sun. He was
sentenced to lifelong house arrest.
Others found guilty of heresy during inquisitions from the 12th to
19th centuries suffered penalties as severe as torture or death.
Frank Flinn, an adjunct professor of religious studies at Washington
University in St. Louis and a former Roman Catholic friar, predicted
that the San Bernardino trial will backfire and publicize a
little-known denomination that might appeal to disenchanted Roman
Catholics looking for a liberal alternative that preserves Catholic
rituals.
Left to Avoid Reassignment
Reidy said he joined the Ecumenical Catholic Communion because the
Holy Cross order planned to reassign him and he did not want to leave
the desert. The order typically limits a priest's stay in one parish
to 12 years.
In 2003, the Holy Cross order formally dismissed Reidy, said the Rev.
Ken Molinaro, assistant provincial for the order.
Reidy, who was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest in 1962, said he
had long questioned church teachings on the ordination of women and
other issues. However, he said, he would have stayed at Christ of the
Desert indefinitely because he had a long history there, liked his
parishioners and was able to take "a progressive approach" to liturgy
and ministry.
Most of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion's 35 priests are former
Roman Catholic priests, Hickman said.
Lincoln said the diocese is not taking action against other Ecumenical
priests because it is unaware of any others who had been pastors in
the diocese.
The Rev. John Coughlin, a law professor at Notre Dame and an expert in
canon law, said although the trial can be conducted at the diocesan
level, Reidy would have the right to appeal any ruling to the Vatican.
Reidy said he has no plans to do so because an appeal would give the
decision legitimacy.
Coughlin said there are less drastic ways for the diocese to make it
clear that Reidy is no longer a Roman Catholic priest.
"It doesn't make sense if he's left the priesthood and left the
Catholic Church for him to be tried," Coughlin said. "It seems to me
it could be achieved by a simple statement by the bishop that the
priest is no longer a Roman Catholic priest."
Canonical crimes aplenty
Nick Cafardi, erstwhile dean of the Duquesne U. School of Law and an emiment canonist, was at Villanova Law last week to continue our series on the Philadelphia Grand Jury's report on the Archdiocese. Cafardi's excellent paper answered many questions that had come up in our earlier session, which Mark and I mentioned here, led by Jim Post (Boston U. and founder of Voice of the Faithful), Chuck Zech (Villanova, economics), and Mark himself. Specifically, Cafardi avers that if Holy Mother Church had followed her own law, no grand jury anywhere would have had any work to do. Cafardi explained that can. 1717 requires investigations of a sort systematically avoided in Philadelphia when allegations of a delict reached the chancery; the canon creates a right in the putative victim to have the matter investigated by the bishop (or his delegate). Cafardi further explained that, subject to can. 1341, can. 1718 would require a bishop, who, having investigated, has reason to believe a delict involving abuse by a priest of a youth has occurred, to proceed to a canonical trial that could result in the imposition of a just canonical penalty. Can. 1341 prefers the use of "fraternal correction" where that can sufficiently "restore justice," but the tradition stretching back through all the centuries, Cafardi demonstrated, is against the idea that fraternal correction is sufficient in cases of this sort. It was suggested by a member of the audience that the bishops who utterly disregarded canon law are themselves unprosecuted canonical criminals; the Apostolic See would have to initiate their prosecution. Cafardi emphasized that while the canon law acknowledges the right of the faithful to have their canoncial rights (e.g., to have a canonical crime investigated and prosecuted) vindicated (see can. 221), canon law is sorely lacking in procedures that would allow the faithful to see those rights vindicated. Apparently, a penultimate draft of the 1983 Code included "administrative recourse" procedures that would have give given the faithful some opportunity to seek the vindication of their canonical rights.
Is it surprising that, in a (Catholic) culture that increasingly denies the divinely-ordained hierarchical structure of that perfect and juridically-structured society that is the Church, the bishops would fail to act in a way that would require them to acknowledge their munus as law-bound rulers of the Church?
Saturday, December 3, 2005
Dissent and Conscience
Two points/questions in response to Steve's most recent posting. First, if Fr. McCormick S.J. means that "dissent" is a necessary condition of a healthy tradition, then I think he's just dead wrong. A community actively engaged in asking and answering questions over time, allowing the cumulative and progressive entrance of knowledge, is a healthy tradition. One can register and pursue a question about the received learning without "dissenting" from it, no? Second, whatever one's judgment as to what the Second Vatican Council taught on the question of "subjective conscience," the subjectively innocent but objectively wrong conscience lands its owner in a dangerous position. God may reward the person possessed of a subjectively innocent (but objectively mistaken) conscience (a thesis Jack Coons and I explored in our By Nature Equal book), but still that person is in trouble: She is, in fact, cut off from the truth until her conscience becomes correct, and, meanwhile, pursuing the objectively erroneous course may cause ontic harm.
Friday, December 2, 2005
Further to the Tablet
The Instruction's numerous ambiguities that might appear to be intentional are indeed important, as the essay in yesterday's TRN brought to light from a different angle. What I am particularly grateful for in the Tablet's analysis is the emphasis on the difference between culpability and suitability for an office/ministry. The Instruction, consistently with the Church's other teaching documents, in no way imputes to individuals culpability based on "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" as such, and who would dispute the correctness of the Instruction's insistence that the Church is charged with ordaining to the priesthood only those who can faithfully represent the fullness of the faith? This insistence presupposes, of course, that all inheritors of original sin sometimes have desires/tendencies that incline them (us) in wrong directions; not surprisingly, the Instruction does not court heresy.
Limbo, anyone?
I look forward to reading the forthcoming recommendation that is referred to below. Jacques Maritain, for one, would be surprised (and disappointed?) by its contents. JM's last writings on Limbo, an embarrassment to some among his conservative followers, speculated that in the end even Lucifer might be elevated to Limbo. This because the Father's saving will might insist that one get only what one wills, not an everlasting punishment in addition. A worthy hope, but one that'll be out of the question now? We can look forward to understanding the power of the "original grace" that, according to the story, the recommending document will invoke.
Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- An international group of Vatican-appointed theologians is about to recommend that the Catholic Church close the doors of limbo forever.
Many Catholics grew up thinking limbo -- the place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of "natural happiness" but not in the presence of God -- was part of Catholic tradition.
Instead, it was a hypothesis -- a theory held out as a possible way to balance the Christian belief in the necessity of baptism with belief in God's mercy.
Like hypotheses in any branch of science, a theological hypothesis can be proven wrong or be set aside when it is clear it does not help explain Catholic faith.
Meeting Nov. 28-Dec. 2 at the Vatican, the International Theological Commission, a group of theologians led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger until his election as Pope Benedict XVI, completed its work on a statement regarding "the fate of babies who have died without baptism."
A press release said the commission's statement would focus on the question "in the context of God's universal saving plan, the uniqueness of the mediation of Christ and the sacramentality of the church in the order of salvation."
U.S. Archbishop William J. Levada, president of the theological commission in his role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told Pope Benedict Dec. 1 that he hoped the statement would be published soon.
Archbishop Levada said the question is important because "the number of babies not baptized has increased considerably" and the church knows that salvation "is only reachable in Christ through the Holy Spirit."
But the church, "as mother and teacher," also must reflect on how God saves all those created in his image and likeness, particularly when the individual is especially weak "or not yet in possession of the use of reason and freedom," the archbishop said.
Redemptorist Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the commission, told Catholic News Service "the limbo hypothesis was the common teaching of the church until the 1950s. In the past 50 years, it was just quietly dropped.
"We all smiled a bit when we were presented with this question, but then we saw how many important questions it opened," including questions about the power of God's love, the existence of original sin and the need for baptism, he said.
"Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved" with an affirmation that somehow God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven, "but we had to backtrack and do the theology," Father Kelly said.
A conviction that babies who died without baptism go to heaven was not something promoted only by people who want to believe that God saves everyone no matter what they do.
Pope John Paul II believed it. And so does Pope Benedict.
In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.
"It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism," he said.
In "God and the World," published in 2000, he said limbo had been used "to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible" to ensure that they had the "sanctifying grace" needed to wash away the effects of original sin.
While limbo was allowed to disappear from the scene, the future pope said, Pope John Paul's teaching in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "The Gospel of Life" took "a decisive turn."
Without theological fanfare, Pope John Paul "expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament," the then-cardinal said.
Father Kelly said turning away from the idea of limbo was part of "the development of the theological virtue of hope" and reflected "a different sense of God, focusing on his infinite love."
The Redemptorist said people should not think the changed focus is a lightweight embrace of warm, fuzzy feelings.
"The suffering, death and resurrection of Christ must call the shots," he said. "If Christ had not risen from the dead, we never would have thought of original sin," because no one would have needed to explain why absolutely every human needed Christ's salvation.
The fact that God loves his creatures so much that he sent his Son to die in order to save them means that there exists an "original grace" just as there exists "original sin," Father Kelly said.
The existence of original grace "does not justify resignation," or thinking that everyone will be saved automatically, he said, "but it does justify hope beyond hope" that those who die without having had the opportunity to be baptized will be saved.
END
Cardinal Cottier on the Instruction
Document Shows Homosexuals Much Sensitivity"
Interview With Cardinal Cottier on New Vatican Instruction
VATICAN CITY, DEC. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The new Vatican document on homosexuality and admission to seminaries and holy orders is not an "attack on homosexuals," says Cardinal Georges Cottier.
Rather, the document is an effort "to understand their situation" and sufferings, explained Cardinal Cottier, who until today was the theologian of the Pontifical Household.
The Instruction "Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admissions to the Seminary and to Holy Orders," was published Tuesday.
It was written by the Congregation for Catholic Education, with the approval of Benedict XVI.
Cardinal Cottier, 83, whose successor as Pontifical Household theologian was named today, shared his views of the new Instruction with ZENIT.
Q: What is new in this document?
Cardinal Cottier: The novelty above all lies in the fact that it offers a synthesis of what had already been said and presents it as a whole. It is a text which seems to me to be very thought out.
Q: Perhaps the novelty is in the reference to "gay culture" and the sensitivity of tone in the choice of words. It deplores, for example, "discrimination."
Cardinal Cottier: Above all, I would underline its sensitivity. It is in no way, as has been said, an attack on homosexuals. On the contrary, there is an effort -- and an invitation to make this effort -- to understand their situation and the problems that these persons frequently suffer.
The document shows that there is a path and salvation for homosexuals in the measure that they bear their homosexuality in union with the suffering Christ. The document shows them much sensitivity.
On the other hand, it doesn't mince matters. It makes the distinction between persons who engage in homosexual activity and those who have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," and those who have slight, "transitory" tendencies, linked to episodes in their lives, of which I would say they can free themselves. Therefore, there are degrees.
In regard to the "gay culture," it is true that it is a new phenomenon, very recent. The proclamation of the "gay culture" as a social claim is something of these last years. This is why it is talked about.
Q: The document underlines the need for "emotional maturity" of the candidates to the priesthood facing "spiritual paternity" and of a "correct relationship with men and women," whom the priest will meet in his pastoral ministry.
Cardinal Cottier: It is a very important point. In regard to formation, it says that the human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral aspect must be taken into account. It is a question, therefore, of an ensemble of qualities.
And there is much emphasis on the human aspect, making a judgment based on studies: the fact that homosexuality impedes, in a certain sense, "emotional maturity," a term which appears on several occasions.
Emotional maturity is also necessary for those who want to live consecrated celibacy fully, perfect chastity. Emotional immaturity can also affect the relationship with the other sex.
In general, homosexuality is accompanied by this emotional immaturity. It is an affirmation that is going to be criticized, but that is based on experience.
Inasmuch as representative of Christ, bridegroom of the Church, the priest is called to exercise a spiritual paternity among men and women. For this reason, emotional maturity is necessary, which implies a spirit of sacrifice and self-forgetfulness out of love for the other.
Q: Also underlined is the role of the spiritual director and the personal responsibility of the candidate to the priesthood.
Cardinal Cottier: The document reminds us that it is not enough to feel called to the priesthood to have the right. It is always the bishop who calls to the priesthood.
But the bishop has collaborators who are the directors of seminaries, and the spiritual director in what concerns the internal forum, in which the person is obliged to secrecy.
What the spiritual director is requested to do is to help the candidate who has deep-seated homosexual tendencies to understand himself and to help him decide that he is not made for the priesthood.
It must be a journey made by the person himself. It is very important. It doesn't mean that these persons are "thrown out" or "rejected." What is simply done is to help them realize that that is not the path the Lord wills for them.
If all this is done with great sensitivity, and great charity, the persons will be given great respect. And then disasters as the ones we have had will be avoided.
I would like to add something to what is much talked about -- too much, perhaps, I don't know: pedophilia and homosexuality.
There is a word that is never used and that, however, is important when we see the work that priests do; it is the word "ephebophilia."
It is not pedophilia, which is attraction to small boys, but refers to attraction to adolescents. It is a very ambiguous and decisive age for every one. And I think it is a very extended form of homosexuality.
I think it is necessary to present this clarification, as families entrust adolescents to priests -- scouts, summer camps, pilgrimages, groups. In those cases, these boys must be totally respected.
Q: How can one understand the Instruction's expression which seeks "to guarantee that the Church will always have suitable priests who are true shepherds according to the heart of Christ?
Cardinal Cottier: There is only one Shepherd in the Church. The Pope, bishops and priests are shepherds as they participate in this prerogative of Christ. They must live in great union with Christ.
And, if the interior life -- life of prayer, of union with the Lord, love of the Eucharist, constant meditation of the Word of God, prayer -- is lacking, one fails to fulfill this mission, of being that representative, image in our midst of the one Shepherd, that is Jesus Christ.
Q: What is the authority of this document written by a Vatican congregation?
Cardinal Cottier: Vatican congregations have authority to the extent that they are authoritative collaborators of the Pope.
I take the liberty to remind you that at the end the Pope has requested, with his signature, that this phrase be published in the document: "The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication."
The authority of the Pope is implicated by the fact that it is a text of a congregation, and the congregation responsible for Catholic education, which counted on the collaboration of the Congregation for Divine Worship -- two important congregations.
There are texts of congregations that are working documents; they have no need of the explicit approval of the Pope. Here, his approval is given and the order that it be published. The Pope's authority is present.
ZE05120102
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Discrimination
By way of a first answer to the question of Michael Perry, whom I love: If the Church "ruled" that "persons of African ancestry could not be ordained," Patrick would be shocked, awed, and confused. But, mercifully, the same Patrick doesn't and won't have to confront that crisis; the Church won't so "rule[]." And, for the record, I have taken no position here (or elsewhere) on whether gay men (people?) are in fact called by God to the ministerial priesthood; my position is that on this question I (shall) seek to accept the answer given by the Church. For the sake of the discussion, however: Was there a non-discrimination norm seeking to bind Christ when he called the apostles to their priestly ministry? Does Christ's exemplary charity entail or reveal that God cannot or does not, on account of an equality-of-equal-service norm, call some (but not others) to such (holy) office? The Church doesn't (and, to my knowledge, never has) taught that ethnicity is part of what Christ taught about His holy priesthood. That the Church would now -- in a world that more and more denies the essential and consequential difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality which the Church continues to affirm-- speak afresh to sexuality's part in the ministerial priesthood is as it should be. Susan S. is of course right that the documents sounding in terms of "homosexuality" are of compartively recent genesis; whether the Church's teaching on homosexuality as such is a flash in the pan is another question, which I referenced with my observation that new wrongs call forth new declarations of (new) rights. Returning to the question of the ministerial priesthood in particular: "Discrimination is the wrong issue/question, as concerns the life of the Church as we're discussing it here; the sources of officia and munera are the heart of the matter, as I see it." The Church's teaching on homosexuality should not be a cause for our surprise, whatever one may think of the teaching; the recent Instruction as it concerns the necessary conditions for admission to (the seminary leading to) ministerial priesthood is a matter that will be well debated by competent theologians in service of the Church.
Officia, munera
Eduardo's post appeared while I was drafting my last. I have to run, but first I'd just say in haste that, in my view, the Church's unequivocal affirmations of the equal dignity of all persons are in no way undermined by her affirmation that, by divine law, natural law, or other valid law, certain (categories of) persons have (and others do not) particular offices or functions. The fundamental and unalterable equality of persons frees us to appreciate individuals' particular (and sometimes sacred and elevated) roles in the community. Discrimination is the wrong issue/question, as concerns the life of the Church as we're discussing it here; the sources of officia and munera are the heart of the matter, as I see it.
Reading the Instruction and its antecedents
In the post-Humanae vitae addition to his book Contraception, John Noonan said (I paraphrase, not having the book at hand): "Now the magisterium has spoken; our task is to understand what what has been spoken means." There was a live question in the 1960s about whether the teaching on artificial contraception would be reaffirmed; the story of the path from John XXIII to Humanae vitae, including Paul VI's personal resolution of the question that many had investigated at the instance of the Bishop of Rome, is well known. I agree with Rich: There should be little cause for surprise in the contents of the Congregation's recent Instruction, at least as concerns homosexuality. Certainly, the documents adduced by Fr. Araujo show a continuity of teaching on homosexual attaction's being a "disorder." The textual evidence does not support the claim that the teaching on homosexuality (rather than homosexual acts) is a surprise; though I have the documents here on my desk and could quote the material passages, I'm sure others will want to read and re-read them for themselves. The adduced documents' different purposes account for varying emphases as between homosexual acts and homosexuality; no Church document affirms that homosexuality is not a disorder. Just as violations of human dignity call for fresh declarations of human rights, so too do new assaults on the Church's teaching and work and new challenges in the life of the People of God call for new declarations of the Church's teaching. We hear things we haven't heard before because the Church speaks to the ever-new present, but does anyone suggest that the Church's teaching on homosexuality's being a disorder is not in continuity? The continuity is, I suggest, clear; the separate question is whether the teaching is true. Some will answer in the negative. That the Church's teaching develops, I do not dispute; the question is whether the development is authentic.
The Instruction's particular way of applying the Church's teaching on homosexuality to her teaching on the vocation to the ministerial priesthood was not exactly what I expected. I'm a slow learner. But here, at the heart of the Church where what is at issue is whom God calls to the priesthood of Jesus Christ, I feel little capacity to do more than try to learn. The Bishops as such may not be particularly competent to pass prudential judgment on the contemporary sufficiency of alternatives to capital punishment, but they'd better be, by virtue of their office, competent to judge whom God calls to the ministerial priesthood. The competing theologies that assign responsibility and authority for this judgment to the lay community are just that, competing theologies. Perhaps the recent Instruction will incite more people to embrace such theologies. Still, it is the Bishop alone who can confer priesthood.
I agree with Michael Scaperlanda that we Catholics in the legal academy are called upon to translate, as best we can, what the Church teaches about herself to that wider world in which we the Church must make our way under the mandate to share with all the Good News. I see that already (in my old-home diocese of Phoenix) a man has "resigned" from the priesthood on account of this Instruction. This is very sad. In the words of Cardinal Grocholewski referring to priests with homosexual attractions: "These priestly ordinations are valid, because we not not affirm their invalidity." To abandon the exercise of the priestly ministry for a higher calling strikes this layman, at least, as a path not to be taken.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
