I thank Father Araujo for finding a link to the
document I cited. The list of items he refers to is followed by a section on
selective adherence to Church authority. There the Bishops say: “To give
selective assent to the teachings of the Church not only deprives us of her
life- giving message, but also seriously endangers our communion with her.
"If a Catholic in his or her personal or
professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined
doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definitive
teaching on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or
her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation
would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or
she should refrain. “
As to the requirement to believe what the
Bishops say because they say so, I refer to this statement: “Bishops who teach in communion with the
Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic
truth; the
faithful,
for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the
name of Christ, in matters of faith
and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.”
I would be interested to know whether those Catholics who reject the Church’s
teaching on homosexuality and/or birth control should be receiving the Eucharist
under this teaching. Are they not involved in selective adherence to Church
doctrine?
cross-posted with elaboration at religiousleftlaw.com
Steve is correct: the link to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops November 2006 Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper is not working. But not to be deterred from reading this important text, I did some trolling on the USCCB website—that must make me a fisher of documents—and found the PDF version of the text which is uploaded here [Download Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper].
But, I apparently take a different tack on how the bishops’ text on the Eucharist is to be understood. First of all, it is essential to understand the Eucharist is union with Christ. The bishops of a particular episcopal conference, i.e., the United States, in the proper exercise of their teaching authority as confirmed on several occasions at the Second Vatican Council (e.g., Lumen Gentium; ChristusDominus), note that there are occasions when members of the Church “should refrain from partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ” because this union with Christ is gravely compromised. Nevertheless, they acknowledge the need for being cautious when a judgment is made about whether or not another person should receive Holy Communion or not. Of course, when one is in mortal sin, his or her relation with God and the Church is compromised because of the failure to be in the necessary state of grace.
In the proper exercise of their teaching authority, the bishops present a non-exclusive list of some thoughts, acts, and omissions that constitute such compromises. Included are:
·Believing in or honoring as divine anyone or anything other than the God of the Holy Scriptures
·Swearing a false oath while invoking God as a witness
·Failing to worship God by missing Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation without a serious reason, such as sickness or the absence of a priest
·Acting in serious disobedience against proper authority; dishonoring one’s parents by neglecting them in their need and infirmity
·Committing murder, including abortion and euthanasia; harboring deliberate hatred of others; sexual abuse of another, especially of a minor or vulnerable adult; physical or verbal abuse of others that causes grave physical or psychological harm
·Engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage
·Stealing in a gravely injurious way, such as robbery, burglary, serious fraud, or other immoral business practices
·Speaking maliciously or slandering people in a way that seriously undermines their good name
·Producing, marketing, or indulging in pornography
·Engaging in envy that leads one to wish grave harm to someone else
Lots of compromises here as you can see, including some of those to which Steve refers. But being pastors, the bishops offer help to those not in a state of grace by reminding all that the Sacrament of Penance is available to remove the infirmity that impedes union with Christ. This sacrament is available not only to those who “knowingly and obstinately...reject the defined doctrines of the Church” but to all who compromise their status and are not in the necessary state of grace. I disagree with Steve’s argument that what is really being refused are the “teachings of the Bishops.” Rather, something else is being refused: it is a knowing and obstinate rejection of the defined doctrines of the Church including Her “definitive teaching on moral issues,” some of which have been quoted above. This is a crucial distinction. So, it is not failure to “accept the teachings of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops” as Steve argues that constitutes the compromise; rather, it is the knowing and obstinate refusal of the Church’s teachings that the bishops, by their office and the authority conferred therein, are obliged to teach.
I am not sure I follow Steve’s point about the Nicene Creed. But, if he is suggesting that this is all that the bishops are obligated to teach, something is missing, i.e., Revelation and almost two thousand years of the Church’s teaching. In this latter context, the Apostle Paul had more than one occasion to address moral issues that many of our contemporary society dismiss as being solely confined to the tastes of the autonomous individual.
Finally, I am not sure if there exists today the “typical liberal Catholic” to which Steve refers or, for that matter, the “typical conservative Catholic” whom he does not mention. But if such persons do exist, I wonder which kind was Mr. Leander Perez; or Mrs. Bernard Gaillot; or Mr. Jackson Rickau...
Rick Garnett maintains that Catholic liberals are not really put upon, but are welcome among U.S. Catholic Bishops. I do not think this is so. In its statement "Happy Are Those Who are Called to His Supper" (unfortunately the link to it is not working), the Bishops told the faithful that they are not to receive communion if they engage in an obstinate refusal (I believe that this includes well considered, but persistent refusal) to follow teachings of the Bishops. As I interpret this, liberal Catholics who as a matter of conscience cannot accept teachings of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in particular are obligated to follow their conscience (though the Bishops do not even concede this), but in doing so, they have separated themselves from the Church. On the same day, the Bishops in a separate document reaffirmed the Church's teaching on birth control (see here) and in a separate document its teaching on homosexuality (the link is not working). I find it unlikely that the Bishops were unaware of the juxtaposition of these documents. I concede that the Bishops did not specify particular teachings (creating a loophole for the literal minded), but I think it clear in context that they had more in mind than the Nicene Creed. I also think that they had more in mind than the abortion issue. And one should not forget that the typical liberal Catholic disagrees with the Church on a wide variety of issues involving various facets of sexuality, divorce, and the role of women (and, of course, the same Catholic typically agrees with Church's general theology and most of its ethical teachings). I think the failure of the Bishops to specify the particular beliefs was probably caused by the lack of a consensus. But the notion that the liberal Catholic is welcome in the halls of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is difficult for me to credit.
Chris Tollefsen has postedthis essay on the "abiding significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki", 65 years after those cities were bombed with nuclear weapons. As I noted in my recent post, below, responding to Anne Rice, it is often the case that the Church will make even the most faithful and decent people feel a bit uncomfortable about the fact that they are too comfortable with things that should make them uncomfortable. I take it that the bombings of these Japanese cities was not morally justified, even taking into the consideration the fact (let's assume, for now, it is a fact) that, on balance, they ended the war sooner than it otherwise would have ended and at the cost of fewer human (American and Japanese) lives. As Tollefsen writes:
Some few Catholic scholars, notably Elizabeth Anscombe and Fr. John Ford, S.J. argued at the time that the Allied approach was immoral. Their argument, which drew from a moral tradition dating back to St. Augustine, was based on the premise that intentionally killing the “innocent” was always a grave wrong. Both Anscombe and Ford noted that, despite occasional confusion, the meaning of “innocent” could not be “morally innocent,” but rather must mean “not posing a threat.” For it is a threat that justifies the use of defensive force in war, not the moral character of individual civilians who might be morally at fault in their support of, say, the Nazi government, yet be engaged only the in same tasks they would have been working on in peacetime: growing and distributing food, caring for their families, working in the medical profession, and so on. Given this approach to the distinction, Ford estimated that as much as two thirds of the city of Boston would, during World War Two, have been “innocents,” when women, children, and the aged were factored in.
The Allied bombings in Europe, then, and the firebombing and atomic bombing in Japan, seem to have been deliberate targeting of civilian populations: in other words, intentional attacks on innocent human life. And, if Anscombe’s and Ford’s premise about intentional killing of the innocent is correct, then the conclusion is inescapable: these Allied actions constituted murder on a vast scale, running to hundreds of thousands of lives. . . .
In my own experience, this is -- for some people whose faith is deeper, and decency greater, than mine -- a hard claim. It is hard to say -- or, if not to say, to really believe -- that the better, and more-right (or, at least, less-wrong) thing to do is not to end the war sooner. Should it be so hard? Harry Truman and Winston Churchill are admired by almost everyone. (I have a Churchill poster in my office.) Should they be? Tollefsen concludes:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombings that preceded them, the decisions that led to them, and the rationalizations that justified them, remain with us today, underwriting both some of our most grievous moral errors, and our more ambiguous moral triumphs. As individuals, and especially as a nation, it still remains for us to grasp the deep significance of those fateful, and horrible, days.
Yikes! I go away to climb in Wyoming, and come back to MOJ to find it in the grip of vampires! (I kid, I kid.) Seriously, though: Unlike Steve, I find not much to particularly admire, and quite a bit that seems ignorant and bizarre, in the much-remarked Anne Rice Facebook post. Her "I refuse" litany is misdirected, and says more about her misunderstandings of Christianity ("I refuse to be anti-life"?) than it does about Christianity. Steve suggests that the "impetus for Rice's decision" is understandable to most "Christian liberal[s]", but I'm going to persist in thinking better of my friends and colleagues who are Christians-who-are-political-liberals, and in thinking that they (unlike Rice) are able to distinguish between fundamentalist distortions of Christianity and New York Times-type attacks on and caricatures of Christianity, on the one hand, and orthodox Christianity, on the other.
Steve also linked to a post by David Sylvester, in which he explains "why he stays in the Church." (See John 6: "Lord, to whom shall we go?"). I will put aside, for now, my regret over the use of "liberal Catholic" and "conservative Catholic" in Steve's and Mr. Sylvester's posts, because I am increasingly of the view that these labels are not very helpful in understanding reality, and are too often used as epithets.
Obviously, if someone like Mr. Sylvester feels caught in a "plight" of some kind, then it is not likely to be helpful to tell him that, in fact, that plight is more imagined than real. Instead, all I can say is that my own impressions and experiences make it hard for me to see how it is that a Catholic in America today -- living in a typical parish, in a typical diocese -- could really think that Catholics-who-are-liberals are really so put upon. On almost every issue, those supposedly reactionary "Church leaders" (here and abroad) lend their support to the "liberal" side of political debates. (In many cases, they are -- in my view -- correct to do so.) In most chanceries, and in the halls of the USCCB, the politically "liberal" view is (at the very least) welcome. It is not clear what is all that "conservative" about the life, business, activity, and liturgy of most Catholic parishes. I suspect that few Catholics (contrary to what some seem to think) actually hear many homilies espousing "conservative" positions on live political questions. Certainly, one does not want to be perceived as "conservative" at any but a few of our Catholic universities and colleges. Maybe there are a few thousand hard-core types who, as Steve says, want a smaller, purer Church without fellow-Catholics-who-vote-liberal, but I feel sure that their number is not larger than the number of "liberals" who wish all of the "conservatives", with their abortion-obsession and stubborn refusals to embrace Dan Schutte and Bernadette Farrell, would either leave or get with the program.
True, there are some bishops and clergy who, now and again, insist on making Catholics-who-are-political-liberals feel a bit uncomfortable about the abortion-related agenda and activities of today's political left (and many more who, quite appropriately, insist on making Catholics generally feel uncomfortable about American consumerism, nationalism, and non-abortion-related individualism.) So, it seems to me that the "plight" of the liberal Catholic is that they are, as Catholics, sometimes made to feel uncomfortable as American political liberals, just as Americans generally are sometimes made, as Catholics, to feel uncomfortable about their sins, faults, and failures. And, American Catholics-who-are-political-liberals should feel uncomfortable (Anne Rice notwithstanding) with the American left's abortion-related positions (just as American Catholics-who-are-political-conservatives should -- and, in my experience, do -- feel uncomfortable with the often-excessively-individualistic economic views of American conservatives).
I'm glad Mr. Sylvester is "staying in the Church" -- it is, after all, the body of Christ, established by Him -- but I'm not sure he's blaming the right people for his "plight."
On Facebook,
Ann Rice has announced that she continues to follow Christ, but is no longer a
Christian. On July 28, she said, “For those who care, and I understand if you
don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as
always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It's
simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile,
disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've tried. I've
failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
Five minutes later, she elaborated, “As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the
name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse
to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to
be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be
anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit
Christianity and being Christian. Amen."
The next day
she said this: “My faith in Christ is central to my life. My
conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to
an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is
crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers.
Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always
will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.”
The response
has been enormous. Thousands responded in one way or another on Facebook. The
United Church of Christ invited her to become a member, because it believed its understanding of
Christianity matches hers. But Rice has arrived at the conclusion that
organized religion is not for her.
Joseph
Bottums at First
Things heaped sarcasm on her decision. In a post that exuded superiority,
Bottoms criticized her for exhibiting a sense of superiority. I cannot help but
thinking that Bottom’s post exhibits a form of argumentation that is itself not
Christian.
It would be
the rare Christian liberal who did not understand the impetus for Rice’s
position. Although conservative Christians are a minority ofChristians
– at least in the United
States, the media has constructed an image of Christians that is
decidedly in
the conservative mold. Conservative Christians and the mass media have
given
Christianity a bad name – at least from the perspective of progressives.
For
them, it is necessary to say, “I am a Christian – but” Or, as I am often
forced
to say, “I am a Catholic – but.” In the case of Catholicism, the
ordinary
citizen and the traditional Catholic thinks that what the Vatican says
defines
Catholicism – even though the vast majority of American Catholics as a
matter of conscience reject many
solemn Vatican pronouncements and the ordinary citizen is generally
unaware of the Church's many Christian commitment's to social justice or
the Church's non-resistance to science.
In the end,
although I admire Rice, in the end, I do not agree. I do not think the term
Christianity should be ceded to anti-feminists and anti-gays. Enormous progress
has been made in this area within Christian sects in the past few decades
(although, if I may resort to euphemism, Rice’s former Catholic home has
registered less progress on both fronts). The tide of history runs against
conservatives on these issues.
Even more
important, a major strand of Christianity from the progressive perspective is
to fight for social justice and in most cases that is best done with others.
Moreover, Christianity is all about loving, supporting, and helping others.
That is less easy to accomplish in an isolated mode.Of course,
Rice is in a position to do much as a prophet. But I do not think most
followers of Christ should take the individualistic road she recommends.
As today is the feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola, I have been pondering over and praying about the condition of following Christ. As one who has also made his solemn profession of the four public vows in the Society, I think especially about the requirement to accept the request from the Roman Pontiff to serve the Church’s missions—wherever they may be, and they areeverywhere these days. I also think about God and the question of the Second Council, quid est homo?
As an aid in all this, I have been reading Samuel Gregg’s recent book The Modern Papacy. He concludes this informative and wonderfully thought-provoking book with this:
The moment the papacy ceases to explore these matters [i.e., Does God exist? If so, what is his nature? Through what means, if any, can humans comprehend this higher reality? If God has revealed himself to humanity, how does this Revelation relate to the truths knowable through natural reason? Does this Revelation have any significance for the choices made by individuals and societies? If so, does this mean that man is essentially free or is humanity simply subject to the whims of an arbitrary Supreme Being? What does it mean to do good and avoid evil? Do categories such as good and evil possess their own concrete content? Or are they simply synonyms for useful and less useful, better and worse? Is death the end and oblivion, or the culmination of one beginning and the commencement of something new?] or begins, as Ratzinger writes, to present a vision of Jesus Christ as someone who “demands nothing, never scolds, who accepts everyone and everything, who no longer does anything but affirm us,” it will surely have nothing distinctive to say. The loss would be everyone’s.
A blessed feast to one and all. An now, back to pondering and praying—and a wee bit of celebration.
Father Roy Bourgeios, a prominent
activist for social justice, gave a homily at a service in which ,
contrary to Catholic doctrine a woman was ordained as a priest. He was
excommunicated four months later.
Father Steven Kiesle asked to leave the
priesthood after his arrest for molesting children. His Bishop sent
letters to the Vatican recommending approval. Four years later, Cardinal
Ratzinger wrote back saying the issue needed careful consideration and
more time. After six years, Kiesle was defrocked.
David A. Sylvester in a thoughtful post at Tikkun Daily writes about why he stays in the Church, this despite his
full recognition of the horror of the comparison of the Church's
treatment of the two priests and his understanding of the checkered
history of the Church. His main lines of argument involve ways in which
liberal Catholics distance themselves from the leadership of the Church.
It is standard Catholic doctrine that Catholics must follow their
well-formed conscience even if it conflicts with those of Church
leaders. Moreover, he does not regard the Vatican as the Church; he
argues that the People of God are the Church. He believes Church leaders
should be confronted in a prophetic spirit of justice, not vengeance.
On the latter point, it may be easier for many
to do this outside the Church than inside. If one stays inside the
Church one is more likely to be angry at Church leaders because one
feels more attached. On the People of God point, ironically, Sylvester
provides the resources to take much of the liberal comfort out of
identifying with them rather than the Vatican. In developing an argument
for humility and understanding the forces working on Church leaders, he
observes that American Catholics are only 6% of the world's Catholics
and, of course, a hefty percentage of American Catholics are not
liberal. On the sexist issues associated with the women's ordination
issue or the issues associated with sexual orientation, from the
perspective of the liberal, the People of God are not much better than
the Vatican. Indeed, the People of God might be less likely to speak out
against the materialism, hedonism, and general limitations of
capitalism. On the other hand, the People of God would be less likely to
cover up sex abuse.
Sylvester also is moved by a more primitive
argument. The conservatives would like me to go. I will not give them
the satisfaction. No doubt many conservatives want the liberals to go;
they would prefer a smaller more unified Church. There is a lot of "Go
Back to Russia" sentiments among Catholic conservatives. But among
others there is a desire for liberals to stay and for them to lead the
best Catholic lives they can. I think this may animate the views of the
Church leadership. On the other hand, there are material considerations
as well. American Catholics provide needed material support for the
mission of the Catholic Church. I do not think the Church leadership
wants to lose that.
Over the past several weeks, a number of us have provided a variety of thoughts regarding the intersection of authority and relativism. In this regard, I just read with great interest the posting of Professor Maureen O’Connell of Fordham University [HERE] of her initial experience at the second biennial gathering of a group who self-identify as Catholic ethicists. The first gathering was convened in Padua two years ago, and the most recent one about which Professor O’Connell addresses was convened in Trent. The theme of this recent international colloquium which ran from July 24-27, 2010 was: “In the Currents of History: from Trent to the Future.”
While asserting that the conference underscored “the importance of tradition in moral theology,” she made a reference to the “public scandal caused by the abuse of authority.” I would differ from her take on this: the cause of scandal in the Church today on all fronts is sinfulness and the attempts to rationalize or protect sin. Scandal, which follows the subscription to sin and sinfulness, is not caused by “the abuse of authority”; rather, it is caused by the succumbing to temptation that leads to sin and to the committing of sin. Moreover, it is often subjective rather than objective determination that promotes the sinful tendency that leads to sin which opens the door to scandal.
Professor O’Connell offers several statements which made me pause because she makes an appeal to subjectivity rather than objectivity. One of these statements deals with her appeal to the “democratization” of morality. Well, if we democratize morality, what easily follows is this: what might be sinful if done by one person may well turn out to be virtuous when performed by another because of subjective rather than objective evaluation that follows the “democratization” of morality. For example: it may be murder to you, but it is honor killing to me.
As I see it, the difficulty with the intensifying moral decision making in a subjective rather than an objective manner is to relativize the decision-making process of determining what is right and wrong not just for some but for all persons who may encounter the same issue. Moral truths evaporate in the face of subjectivity and, with that, harm the ability to distinguish between the right and the wrong. In essence, the subjective nature of moral reasoning and decision-making falls solely within the ambit of personal or group autonomy rather than universal standards formulated by objective reasoning. I also wonder if Professor O’Connell subscribes to the school of thought often encountered in some academic realms that questions whether there are universal moral norms but finds a convenient substitute for them in reliance on moral decision-making that synthesizes subjectivism, context, individual experiences, and the primacy of conscience (even if erroneously formed)?
Since she has suggested more postings on the Trent colloquium that just ended, I look forward to reading her further thoughts on these important matters.
In the New York Times, Feisal Mohamed offers a "third way" between Varro and Augustine in matters of religious liberty. Varro distinguished "natural theology" from "civil theology" -- the latter referring to the theology acceptable in public observance -- while Augustine wondered why, if natural theology is truly natural, it should be excluded from the city. Mohamed explains:
Political and religious positions must be measured against the purity of truths, rightly conceived as those principles enabling the richest possible lives for our fellow human beings.
I'm all in favor of pure truths and rich lives, so maybe Mohamed is on to something. Wait a second, though -- how would this work in practice?
The kind of women’s fashion favored by the Taliban might legitimately be outlawed as an instrument of gender apartheid — though one must have strong reservations about the enforcement of such a law, which could create more divisiveness than it cures. The standard of human harmony provides strong resistance to anti-gay prejudice, stripping it of its wonted mask of righteousness. It objects in disgust to Pope Benedict XVI when he complains about Belgian authorities seizing church records in the course of investigating sexual abuse; it also praises the Catholic Church for the humanitarian and spiritual services it provides on this country’s southern border, which set the needs of the human family above arbitrary distinctions of citizenship. The last example shows that some belief provides a deeply humane resistance to state power run amok. To belief of this kind there is no legitimate barrier.
What a solution! I'm not sure how this "third way" is different than Varro's "civil theology," except that the definitional content built into the "civil" requirement amounts to the World As Your Humble Author Thinks It Should Be.
