Papal Resignations! IX

Blessed John Henry Newman

As you notice, I very rarely post comments but I often try to respond to them in topics I choose for blogs.  Recently I had several inquiries as to how I view the magisterium if I think that certain Church teachings regarding contraception, same-sex relationships, divorce/’remarriage, in vitro fertilization along with other subjects such as sharing the Eucharist with non-Catholics, clerical celibacy, and women’s ordination need to be discussed openly and honestly at every level of the Church.  The implication of the questions is that once something is defined by the magisterium it cannot be changed.
Well, remember this is a historical blog.  I don’t deal with theology qua theology—only with the history of the Church, and at times the history of the development of theological teachings in the Church.  And—remember this too—my consideration of history is not only about the past but also about what light the past sheds on the present and what opportunities for the future the past reveals to us.  People who limit the study of history to the past and don’t consider the past as metaphor that permits us to speak of the present and the future are not historians, they are antiquarians.   The Church has far too many antiquarians, including whoever it is that has been dressing Pope Benedict up in the left-over glad rags of past centuries.  Nevertheless, I am not anxious to go there in this posting. 
The past shows us that the magisterium, including infallible statements, are not irreformable.  Pius XI condemned the Ecumenical Movement in his 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos which was completely overturned by the Decrees Unitatis Reintegratio, Nostrae Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae at the Second Vatican Council.  Remember it was an encyclical that was overturned—the same medium through which Pius XI condemned contraception in Casti Connubi (1928) and Paul VI extended the condemnation to the use of “the Pill” in his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae.  This teaching is considered to be infallible; the condemnation of ecumenism was once so thought also. 
In the 1302 Bull, Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII wrote: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.   
The Church has long moved away from such doctrine—long before Vatican II—but certainly Nostrae Aetate with its positive comments on non-Christian religions and the Divine truths they reflect is more than a repudiation of Boniface’s teaching, it is a contradiction. 
Mortalium Animos and Unam Santam reflect teachings once considered infallible.  On a lesser level, in the 1930’s Pius XI refused a petition from the bishops of France to declare Saint Thérèse of Lisieux a Doctor of the Church on the grounds sexus obstat: her sex (female) was a barrier to such a position.  Hmmm.  That argument is used today in a different context. Some forty years later Paul VI named the first two women as Doctors of the Church—Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena.  John Paul would name Thérèse to that honor in 1997.  Theologians can argue about the ability of the Church to alter doctrine but historians view it from a different perspective, unencumbered by an agenda of apologetics.
What I wrote is that the Church needs to have honest conversation on a wide variety of issues.  The faith of the Church is not solely the teaching of the magisterium—it is the deposit of doctrine and it is the faith held by the faithful, that is by the Church which is not limited to the hierarchy but comprises the community of the baptized.  The Deposit of Doctrine, or the corpus of Tradition, is the province of the theologians who have studied the doctrines along with their roots in Divine Revelation and their historical development through the centuries.  The consensus fidelium—the consensus of the faithful—is the living faith as held and understood (using that term as held intuitively rather than as intellectually fathomed) in the hearts of the baptized.  History shows us, as Blessed John Henry Newman explained so well in his essay On Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine, that magisterium, theologians, and faithful must work in tandem for doctrines to take hold.  The current dissensions among the hierarchy, the theologians, and the faithful indicate to the historian that this is not yet an opportune time to state the teaching of the Church on a wide variety of issues.  But we cannot afford to come to a standstill, thus conversations are necessary to reach that single voice proceeding from a single heart.
Such conversations will not be easy and such accord will not be quick.  We Americans and Western Europeans have a tradition of imperialistic arrogance that we know better than our “little brown brothers” of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific Rim.  We are shocked that they do not see questions about the role of women or about human sexuality from the same perspectives that we do and we think that they are backward for viewing these issues differently.  We are, I suppose, as entitled to our prejudices regarding them as they are theirs regarding women and gays.  Or, maybe we are no more entitled to our prejudices than they are to theirs.  But in any case an honest and frank discussion in a universal Church will not come to easy resolutions, nor will all be pleased with the outcomes, but we need to undertake the process nevertheless.  We can see the chaos which has befallen the Anglican Communion when the Churches of the North have moved unilaterally in directions in which the Churches of the South are unprepared to go. But the alternative is not to stay stuck and go nowhere.  If we believe that the Holy Spirit is here to guide the Church, we need to trust that Spirit and begin the process.             

Vatican II--A Radical Break With the Past

Plaque marking the 1986 interfaith

gathering in Assisi hosted by Pope

John Paul II

As we celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Council, I want to make some comments on the Robert Blair Kaiser lecture I posted on October 19^th .  In particular I want to address the issue of whether the Council represents a “hermeneutic of continuity” as some claim; “a hermeneutic of rupture” as others claim, or the “hermeneutic of reform” as Benedict XVI has now picked up.  In other words—does the Council mark a sharp departure, even a reversal, with the past?  Are the teaching of the Council consistent with the teachings of the Church before the Council?  Or have the teachings of the Church been “reformed” (reformulated?) as part of the “development of doctrine” that is part of the evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) expansion of human understanding of Divine Truth?  Let’s look at one area that clearly was revolutionary, Ecumenism and Interfaith Religious Dialogue: 

The Council changed the way we thought about God, about ourselves, about our spouses, our Protestant cousins, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews, even the way we thought about the Russians. When a handful of bishops kept pushing for conciliar condemnation of Communism, John XXIII kept insisting that that kind of talk would only blow up the world. Pope John and his Council made some preliminary moves that helped end the Cold War. For this, the editors of Time made John XXIII the Man of the Year.

The Jews? The Council reversed the Church's long-standing anti-Semitism. Until the Council, Catholics believed that, if Jews didn't convert to Catholicism, there was something wrong with them. The Council Fathers took another look at that idea and decided that Jews were still living their ancient covenant with God. We decided there was nothing wrong with the Jews; they became our brothers and sisters. ….

 Before the Council, we were told we were excommunicated if we set foot in a Protestant Church. After the Council (where Protestant observers were welcomed, given seats of honor, and spoken of no longer as Protestants, but as 'separated brethren'), we stopped fighting the Methodists and the Presbyterians and conspired with them in the fight for justice and peace and marched with them to Selma.

I recently gave a talk at an adult education program in a bustling suburban parish.  As I looked out at my audience before speaking I suddenly had a chilling awareness.  “How many of you were born after 1962, the year the Council opened?” I asked my audience.  Four-fifths of the audience raised their hands.  Today most Catholics have no idea of what life was like before Vatican II.  I am old enough to remember the world before the Council.  I can rattle off the old “Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutum meum” of the days when altar boys were altar boys and could rightfully swagger about the sanctuary, proud of the immense amount of nonsense syllabus they had committed to memory.  And I remember when to enter a Protestant Church was considered seriously sinful and when the Jews were annually called “perfidious” in the Liturgy.  (Oremus et pro perfidis Iudæis…. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam iudaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis…)  The Catholic Church had established a long policy condemning the ecumenical movement—or rather claiming that authentic ecumenism was that all schismatics (the Eastern Churches) and heretics (The Protestant Denominations) should “return” to the Papal Catholic fold.  Any prayer with such schismatics or heretics—so much as saying the Lord’s Prayer together—was forbidden as mortally sinful.  Rome had been horrified with American participation in the 1893 World Parliament of Religions held at Chicago’s Columbian Exhibition (see entry for March 30, 2011).  Pius XI had been outraged at Cardinal Mericer’s “Malines Conversations” with the Anglicans in the years after World War I even though Mercier—Archbishop of Brussels in Belgium had had the permission of Pius’s Predecessor, Benedict XV for the dialogues.  Pius XI issued an encyclical condemning ecumenism, Mortalium Animos, in 1928 and through the reign of Pius XII any ecumenical activity was strictly prohibited.  When John XXIII announced the Council in January 1959 and explicitly declared that one aim of the Council was heal the breach in Christianity represented by the East-West Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this was radical news.  For these religious bodies to be invited to send official delegations to the Council and the warmth with which these delegations were received would have been unimaginable only four years previous.   And when the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Reintegratio) and the Decree on Non-Christian religions were published (1964 and 1965 respectively), the book had to be rewritten from beginning to end.  No, on ecumenism and interfaith dialogue the hermeneutic is certainly not “continuity” and not even “reform”—in fact not even “reform” but an entirely new beginning. 

Is Vatican II in danger? II ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue

Two years ago Herbert Chilstrom, the first and former presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, wrote an open letter to the clergy of the ELCA. His primary aim was to try to hold his denomination together in the face of an impending schism over deep divisions springing from sexuality issues, but in the course of his letter he wrote: “How long are we going to live with the illusion that Vatican II is alive and well in Roman Catholicism?” Bishop Chilstrom was referring both to a stalling—if not a chilling—of ecumenical relationships between the Catholic Church and other Christian groups and internal conflicts within the Catholic Church that indicate that the open and hopeful spirit that characterized the Catholic Church in the years during and immediately after the second Vatican Council has been replaced by a slow but determined return to preconciliar doctrines and disciplines. “The illusion that Vatican II is alive and well in Roman Catholicism” is an interesting comment from an outside observer. It is brutally frank, almost offensively so, and yet because it comes from someone outside the Catholic Church itself, it has, if not an objectivity of perspective at least a disinterested neutrality that an insider cannot make.
What are some of the signs that ecumenical and inter-religious relations have taken a step back from the heady days of the Council? The 2000 declaration of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Jesus, written by then prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and approved by John Paul II sounded one alarm bell. Dominus Jesus declares that non-Catholic Christian churches that have not preserved a valid episcopate therefore do not possess a genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery and without the fullnes of the Eucharistic mystery they are not “Churches” in the proper theological sense. In fact, the Conciliar decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Reintegratio had made the same distinction but does so in a more circumspect, even dialogical manner that invited response, conversation, argument, and dialogue. Moreover, the thirty-one years of ecumenical cordiality between John XXIII’s calling the Council explicitly to heal the divisions among Christians and the CDF issuing Dominus Jesus had created an atmosphere of open dialogue and mutual respect that the unilateral tone of Dominus Jesus undercut. The reaction from Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox officials was one of hurt and resentment. To be fair, however, the breakdown in dialogue—or perhaps better put as the dialogues are not officially terminated—the theological impasse resulted not only from the CDF document but also in great part from the decision of the majority of Churches in the Anglican Communion and the majority of Protestant Churches to ordain women to the priesthood and episcopacy or the equivalent offices. This made further dialogue, at least regarding sacramental reunion, appear pointless to the Catholic side of the discussion. Of course, dialogue does not need to have an identified point; a perceived impossibility of agreement might be reason to cease discussion in military and political circles, but there is never a reason for conversation among Christians to break down. Charity and Hope alone are sufficient reason.
It was not only Christians that were offended by Dominus Jesus. The same decree went on to declare non-Christians are seriously deficient in terms of access to the means of salvation in comparison with those who in the Church have the full means of salvation. Again, this does not substantially differ in essence from the decree on non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate, but its tone of the CDF document is far more typical of the pre-Vatican II dogmatism than the conciliar decree which highlighted that all the great world religions contain elements of truth and that the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true that is held by these various religions. The exact words of Nostra Aetate are:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. (NA para2)
Despite reservations about religions other than Christianity, Pope John Paul had reached out to peoples of all religions and no religion in a way that built rapport and trust, empowering Catholics to work with people of good will in addressing many of the challenges which face the human family around the globe. Pope John Paul did not hesitate to join in prayer with representatives of all the various religions of the world. In 1986 and again in 2002 John Paul hosted interfaith assemblies in Assisi. The times of common prayer were very carefully structured to avoid giving the impression that Christians were joining in the worship of deities other than the One God who is recognized by the Abrahamic faiths and the interfaith services tended to be rituals of solidarity rather than actual worship. Nevertheless, then Cardinal Ratzinger made it known that he was uncomfortable with such gatherings and he avoided---I hesitate to say” refused” to attend though that was the impression at the time—the second of these meetings.
The situation is not entirely bleak. While there seems little thaw in the air with the Patriarchate of Moscow, and while the Orthodox Church in Greece is not about to let go of their traditional bias against Catholicism, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople and the Papacy seem to be gradually becoming more trusting of one another. In one hopeful sign of the good will generated almost fifty years ago during the Council, Pope Benedict has recently announced a third meeting of religious leaders scheduled for this October (2011) in Assisi to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the first encounter. As Cardinal Ratzinger he had not been enthusiastic about these gatherings; it is very significant that now that he is Pope, he is convoking such a meeting, It must be said too that Benedict, always a gentleman, has cordially received various religious leaders at the Vatican and in 2007 did meet with a gathering of religious leaders, Christian and non-Christian, in an effort to discuss how religion might be used for reconciliation and non-violence rather than deepening the divisions in the human family. Nevertheless, the Pope’s own track record with ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue has been less than satisfactory. Anglicans have not been happy at his issuing procedures not only for individuals but for entire parishes and even dioceses to move their fold to the Catholic side. Of course, at least in the United States, far more Catholic clergy (and probably laity) have moved to the Anglican/Episcopalian bleachers than have come over to our team. Benedict’s 2006 lecture at the University of Regensburg deeply offended Muslims when he quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, as saying “show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Similarly he offended many Jews when he permitted the restored Tridentine Good Friday Service to contain the traditional prayer for the conversion of “the perfidious Jews.” His reconciliation to the Church of Lefebvrist bishop Richard Williamson, a holocaust denier, also set back the Jewish-Catholic relationship.
Perhaps the saddest thing—and the most fatal—is not what has happened on the official level but the breakdown of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue on the local level. The various ecumenical and inter-faith prayer services seem to have mostly fallen into decline. One does not usually see the clergy in one’s town any longer sharing pulpits or teaching a Sunday School in one another’s churches. Monthly lunches may survive from place to place and friendships do form but over all the ecumenical and interfaith dialogue on the local level is a thing of the past. And now when we need it more than ever as America struggles to integrate a new and—to us—very foreign religious tradition, Islam, into our society.
To do a balance sheet on Ecumenical and Interfaith relations in the last two papacies, one would have to say that we are ahead of where we were before the Council started, and overall we accomplished much in the pontificate of Paul VI and the first half of the pontificate of John Paul II but there has been not only a slowing down but a loss of ground in ecumenical and interfaith collaboration and understanding in the last twenty years. It seems to be more than a loss of steam, a threat to any long-term project; there has been a change of tone away from the dialogic and while not in the preconciliar “unconditional surrender” attitude certainly one of (to paraphrase a current movie) “my game, my rules.”
Today's image: In England the Anglican Dean of York Minster incenses the relics of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux during an interfaith service in the Cathedral two years ago. Ecumenism may not be as healthy as it once was, but it is far from dead.