What drew my attention was the
following paragraph
After reading an
endless stream of gushing commentary by liberal Catholics on Pope Francis, I'm
beginning to wonder if they ever really cared about reforming doctrine in the
first place.
Now I am not sure that Linker knows his Catholicism sufficiently
to know what is doctrinal and what is not.
He lumps disciplinary matters like mandatory celibacy in with theological
(doctrinal) matters such as abortion and same-sex marriage. But that isn’t my argument with him. Frankly, I don’t think “liberal” Catholics
have any expectation—or desire—for doctrinal change. Polls show that while American Catholics
stand with the majority of Americans in not wanting a total ban (note the word
“total”) on legal abortion, the vast majority of American Catholics believe
that abortion is a moral evil in as that it is the deliberate taking of a human
life. Similarly the majority of American
Catholics favor the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but I don’t know
any American Catholics (which isn’t to say that there aren’t some, I just don’t
know them) who quibble with the Church’s policy of sacramentally celebrating only
the marriages of a man and a woman who are free of previous valid marriages to
marry. Similarly, I don’t know of any
serious calls to recognize “second marriages” although many would favor lifting
the ban on communion from those married outside the Church. What “liberal” Catholics have long wanted and
now found in Pope Francis, is not a revision of doctrine, but a change of
tone. We had just grown tired of being
such an unfriendly Church where any who did not conform to our idea of
righteousness were judged worthy of only being cast into the outer darkness
where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
We were getting known for what we are against rather than what we stand
for—and a negative label is never good for morale. Nor does this sort of Jansenist condemnatory
tone proclaim the Good News (evangelion,
Gospel) of salvation.
The one area where there most likely is a desire for change is
the matter of opening the ordained ministries to women. The two previous popes have declared this to
be a theological issue but, frankly, have not been convincing. Many—including some of the finest
theological scholars today—have said this is a matter of discipline and not of
doctrine. The argument is that because
the bishop and presbyter (the Latin word for a priest, and better term when
talking theologically) sacramentally represent Christ, and Christ was male, the
bishop and presbyter must be male to represent him. Granted the Bishop and the priest
sacramentally participate in the Unique Priesthood of Jesus Christ—which is to
say that Christ is the only priest in the Christian faith and the bishop and presbyter
are sacramental-representations of Christ the Priest. The bishop or presbyter have no priesthood of
their own, but only that of Christ in which they participate. Of course all the baptized participate in the
Priesthood of Jesus Christ by virtue of their baptism—but those who are
ordained do so in an unique way proper to and restricted to the Sacrament of
Orders. And granted that Jesus is
male. But is the masculinity of Jesus
essential to his being, much less to his priesthood? What is essential to Christ’s Nature, according
to the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon is his humanity, not his
masculinity. But again, we are verging
on the theological here and I want to avoid going too far into that field and
stay to the historical. Let us just say
that other than the possibility of ordaining women to the ministries of Bishop
and Presbyter most “liberal” Catholics are quite content for doctrine to go its
slow path of evolutionary development rather than have the Pope—even Good Pope
Francis—just start changing the key teachings of the faith willy-nilly.
Let me also say that as someone who would generally fall into
the category of “liberal” Catholic, that I don’t want the Pope to change
teachings about contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, or even ordination
of women or priestly celibacy. I want
things to be open for study, research, and intelligent discussion. I am far more interested in a good process
than any particularly desired product. I
think we have a lot we need to think about and talk about before we get into
substantial change. Theologians need to
reclaim their historic role in moving the discussion forward and not simply
providing the rationale for unilateral magisterial decrees. We need—as we had at Vatican II—bishops
making decisions that were enlightened by the theologians. And we need to involve the faithful in those
discussions. I think Pope Francis and
the faithful have learned—and learned instinctively (which is to his credit)—to
sing in harmony. We need for the
faithful, the theologians, and the magisterium all to learn how to sing in
harmony, realizing of course, that harmony permits descants.
Finally, let me just add that as a “liberal Catholic” I would
hope that any substantial change in Church discipline and any significant
development in doctrine would not come from the Chair of Peter acting unilaterally but from a Universal
Council. What would really seal the
Vatican II revival of Francis’ pontificate is the calling of the next
Council. Remarkable things happen when
the Holy Spirit gathers the Church and is allowed to “do her (Pentecost) thing”
No comments:
Post a Comment