Archive for the ‘intellectual life of the church’ Category
From the Commonweal Blog:
“The Fordham Conversation Project … brought together young professors of theology to discuss their emerging role in the Church and university at a time of evident polarization. In this regard the undertaking bears resemblance to the Common Ground Initiative launched by the late Cardinal Bernardin and Monsignor Philip Murnion.
“Here is how one participant describes their intense two days together:
“The concept of friendship, which obviously has a long theological history, was perhaps the central idea of the weekend. If those who disagree actually make conscious choices to engage in practices to create the space to be friends then the disagreement is far less likely to fracture the relationship. And sometimes understanding grows in such a way that the disagreement fades away…or at least is much better understood.
“I think the focus on junior people allowed both of these ideas to flourish in our discussions because ‘our generation’ (1) hasn’t been formed by the culture wars of the 60s and by Vatican II and its aftermath and (2) generally haven’t yet fought the battles that define one’s self in opposition to another person or idea. This allows friendships to flourish across divides.”
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=9598
Tags: church, power of the faithful, tradition recreating itself
“Hertz: There are already companies that have a cooperative business model. Start-ups in Silicon Valley or the suppliers of open-source software are just some examples. These industries are not driven by Gucci capitalism. They work on principles that explicitly value collaboration, partnership, networking, relationships and social forces — values that were not really seen as having any economic worth. But we have seen that sometimes they can be far more successful than the old models.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,685491,00.html#ref=rss
This is the kind of thing the Church should be advocating, instead of blathering on about condoms.
Tags: tradition recreating itself
An article at National Catholic Reporter called A challenge to old progressives by Jamie L Manson (May. 06, 2010) struck home, about the gap between my generation of Catholics and those coming of age in the Church now. I think she nailed it. Quotes from the article below; full article at:
A challenge to old progressives
But what happens to the other baptized Catholics whose faith isn’t nourished by centuries-old devotions, the Latin Mass, and absolute subservience to an all male, celibate hierarchy and clergy?
Where will they find their spiritual home? Where will they find community in a time when face-to-face socialization is quickly disappearing? Where will they find guidance that will help them make meaning during times of sorrow and loss? Where will their values and ethics be challenged and molded so that they can find resources to help them make their marriages work and raise their children? Will they, too, like the other 30 million baptized Catholics in this country who do not attend church, be relegated to the pop spirituality, wellness seminars, life coaching, and new age therapeutics touted on “Oprah”?
Unlike the generations of progressive Catholics who came of age in the 1950s and 1960s, young Catholics are not willing to fight for the soul of the church. The church has lost its influence over the consciences of new generations. Our imaginations were not formed by its rituals and our morality was not created by its figures of authority. We were not raised by a church that held absolute authority over the state of our souls — both in this life and the next.
As a result, many of the symbols of the Catholic church, most especially the priesthood, the parish, and the Mass, have lost their power for many young Catholics. Though these symbols are dying out, the need for the meaning, ethical guidance, and spiritual development embodied in the symbols is stronger than ever.
…
This, I believe, is where older progressive Catholics can be an extraordinary resource. These reformers spend a lot of time and energy worrying, analyzing, writing about, and arguing with the institutional church. I believe they would do well to take some of the energy behind their righteous anger, and engage those who are struggling to find meaning and spiritual development in a rootless world. This might be a better — and certainly more life-giving — use of their time than simply fighting a self-destructive institution.
Together we need to explore the ways in which we are already church, and to enhance the opportunities to become more fully church. We need to discover what sacred experiences we are hungering for and what brings us the more abundant life that Jesus taught us to seek. The more the institutional church starves us, the greater the call should be for us to feed one another by breaking bread together — literally and symbolically.
Younger generations need this support to help them find roots. Older generations need strength and new life from the roots that they planted decades ago. If we begin to think creatively outside of the institutional church and imagine smaller, more intimate ways of sharing community, we all might begin to realize the church as it was in its beginnings.
Tags: tradition recreating itself
Every time the hierarchy takes a stand on anything related to sexuality (e.g., the ban on artificial contraception, the ban on IVF, the attitude towards gays, the issue now manifesting in Wash DC with the withdrawal of adoption services from Catholic Charities), the term “natural law” pops up. Yet the logical relationship between natural law and the particular stand in question is never made clear.
My understanding of natural law is as follows:
It’s natural for existing, living things to flourish and grow and the measure of this growth and flourishing is what we call goodness. So the primary natural law, upon which all other laws must be based, is that good be done (i.e., flourishing occur) and evil avoided.
Natural law is supposed to be founded in our nature and revealed to us by our reason. It should, then, by it’s very nature be *understandable.* Yet it seems that whenever it’s trotted out by the hierarchy as the rationale for a stand, it is the endpoint of the argument, not the beginning. It is garbed in this gnostic, magical aura which we are all just supposed to accept (e.g., revealed, esoteric knowledge necessary for salvation, etc.).
I would love to see some of our more learned friends take apart these alleged natural law claims, since the whole point of natural law is that it is in fact understandable and thereby debatable via reason. The foundation of so many of the hierarchy’s stands about things sexual are intellectually corrupt, it would be a blessed relief to see them lanced once and for all.
The Church has not gotten its stand on sexual matters wrong, the hierarchy has. This is because the hierarchy has not taken account of the ‘sense of the faithful’ (e.g., starting the whole recent mess was Paul VI’s removal of the topic of birth control from the agenda of Vatican II so the bishops – never mind the rest of us – could not weigh in on it). The faithful have steadfastly refused to accept the hierarchy’s point of view.
The hierarchy’s stands about things sexual fail the test of reason not because the arguments don’t hold up but because they aren’t made at all; they are intellectually bogus because they end with natural law rather than begin with it. Also, they fail the test of the fullness of evidence. Look at the footnotes in the latest USCCB letter on marriage — all previous papal documents — like that’s the only reality that needs to be looked at. And look at the difference in the scope of evidence in the Commission on Birth Control’s Majority vs. Minority report. Finally, and most importantly, they fail the test of compassion.
Is natural law another one of those things, like canon law, that progressives blow off because it’s not progressive enough? I was quite surprised to read in Ladislas Orsy’s Receiving the Council that just like the Council failed to create any serious ongoing structures for collegiality, it seems the progressives pretty much blew off the whole domain of canon law. “Opus Dei, on the other hand, fostered the cultivation of this discipline; the University of Navarre became the seedbed for a school of canonists, and from the very moment of the creation of the Committee on the Revision of Canon Law, Opus Dei took an active role in it.” (p. 86)
Tags: intellectual freedom, natural law
The papacy and hierarchy’s very act of demanding that the faithful not talk about certain issues (e.g., women’s ordination) as a prerequisite to being a “good Catholic” is crazy-making; it boggles the mind and demeans the Church.
Imagine going to see your crazy old Uncle Tootie. In order for Uncle Tootie to talk to you, he requires that you wear a hat and hop three times on your left leg before you enter his room. Now you may be fond of Uncle Tootie, and you may remember when he had a few more marbles than he does today, and you may respect him for the work he as done in his life, so you are happy to wear the hat and hop three times on your left leg in order to get in there and pay your respects. But you certainly don’t look to him for any wisdom any more, and you certainly wouldn’t want him running anything.
The more the papacy and hierarchy enforce this policy of certain topics that may not be talked about (e.g., women’s ordination), the more they look like crazy old Uncle Tootie.
That would be cute and funny except for the fact that people are being forced out of their roles in the Church merely for talking about things, as Sister of Charity Louise Lears found out when she forced out of all church ministerial roles and forbidden to receive the sacraments in the archdiocese by Saint Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. Cutting someone off from the sacraments because they talk about women’s ordination? It’s no wonder people flee the Church.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
From Ladislas Orsy: “No one has ever stated more clearly and succinctly the difference between bishops and “doctors” than Aquinas. He discussed it within the framework of the two cathedras: To be promoted to an episcopal cathedra, the qualification required is to be eminent in charity. Ordination then confers eminence in power in relation to the faithful; power that the person did not possess before. To be promoted to a doctoral cathedra, sufficient learning, scientia, is necessary. The position offers an opportunity to use the knowledge and the skill that a person possessed before (cf Quodl. 3.9.c).”
“Comments: Ordination gives no knowledge; no person becomes more learned by it. Competent government, however, especially in our contemporary church, demands a high degree of learning. It follows that ordinarily, unless the bishop has personally sufficient knowledge and skill, he needs the help of the “doctors” to govern well.”
When the hierarchy fixates on obedience, mandatums, visitations and non-transparent, unjust doctrinal scrutiny of said scholars, they stifle the very people who are supposed to be enlightening them.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
Upon the passing of Mary Daly, a retired professor at Boston College, Charlotte Allen asks in a January 14, 2010 Wall Street Journal article, where are all the Catholic dissidents, and notes that the Flame of Catholic Dissent is dying out. She notes that Mary Daly, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Sister Sandra M. Schneiders are all of the Vatican II era and points out the void.
“So where is the second generation of brilliant progressive Catholic theologians? There are plenty of liberal lay Catholics. The church’s ban on artificial birth control is nearly a dead letter, a majority of Catholics say they believe their church should ordain women, and 40% have no moral objections to abortion, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. But dissident Catholicism seems to have lost steam as an intellectual movement, and not only because the issues relating to sex and papal authority that originally sparked Catholic dissidents have not changed in nearly 50 years.”
“The first-generation dissidents were products of a strong and confident traditional Catholic culture against which they rebelled, one whose intellectual standards grounded them in the faith they later came to question. Sister Schneiders, for example, earned four degrees from Catholic institutions, including the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Yet most Catholics of her generation have not passed on the tenets of their faith to their children—the offspring of the Vatican II generation tend either to be churchless or not to go to church—or, in the case of academics, to their students. It’s hard to rebel when you don’t even know what you are rebelling against.”
Again I have to wonder if the intellectual life of the church has lost its zip not so much from outright repression (which would inspire dissent) but from a growing sense of the irrelevance of the authority of the institution.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
In his book Apologia, Cardinal Newman (who had a far tougher time with intellectual freedom in his day than we do in ours) says that he believes in the dogma as taught by the Apostles and interpreted by the Church, and in the universally received traditions of the Church, “which in all times are the clothing and the illustration of the Catholic dogma as already defined,” and other decisions of the Holy See, which come “with a claim to be accepted and obeyed.” Then he says he feels “no temptation at all to break in pieces the great legacy of thought thus committed to us” by the likes of St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas. Then he says keeping “Infallibility and Reason” in ongoing tension is “necessary for the very life of religion” because it brings them together “for the melting, refining, and moulding, by an incessant, noisy process, of the raw material of human nature.”
This is a description of what I think should be going on but is not going on exactly because of the deadening of our intellectual life.
Besides the issues of obsession with obedience, mandatums, the illogic of “not infallible but irreformable,” and the unjust process of sanctions, two things strike me.
One is that all of the issues that seem to be roiling the Church today (birth control, celibacy, women’s ordination, collegiality) have little to do with “dogma as taught by the Apostles.” They are essentially operational issues. Yet power is exercised by the hierarchy to forbid their discussion (e.g., the nun put under interdict for advocating women’s ordination). The hierarchy seems to want to bring down the full power and weight of the magesterium on these issues, even though they have little to do with essential doctrine. That’s why Ad tuendam fidem (i.e., the creation of a category of doctrine that is not infallible but irreformable is so dangerous, besides being illogical).
Secondly, in the meantime, little relative energy is being put into the articulation of the basic truths of the faith in a way that makes sense in the modern world. We never even get to “the melting, refining, and moulding, by an incessant, noisy process” the truths that might rightly be considered infallible, so “Infallibility and Reason” are not being kept in ongoing tension on topics of consequence because all the focus is on mandating obedience to what are essentially bureaucratic issues.
Also, I wonder if the intellectual life of the church has lost its zip not so much from outright repression but from a growing sense of the irrelevance of the authority of the institution. If that’s the case, then the dialectic Newman suggests of “Infallibility and Reason” isn’t going to work.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
What is the state of intellectual freedom in the church? Here’s an example that says it may not be as great as we think.
Remember the debate about teaching creationism in science class in the Kansas public schools? Remember all the Catholic high school principals and presidents of Catholic colleges who hit the media to make perfectly clear that there is no conflict between religious belief and teaching evolution in science class, and that Catholic high schools and colleges have been teaching it in biology classes for at least fifty years?
Yeah, I don’t either.
The Catholic voice was curiously absent, like the dog in the Sherlock Holmes story that didn’t bark in the night. Catholics, of all people, have the rich intellectual tradition that illuminates the border between faith and reason. Yet this controversy went on for months with nary a peep from us. I remember two Catholic voices. One was Cardinal Schonborn, parroting intelligent design philosophy in a New York Times op ed. The other was Father George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, who rebutted Schonborn and said that evolution was not in conflict with faith. (He was subsequently removed from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory.)
It would have been nice to see some Catholic college presidents or high school principals saying, “Duh, we’ve been teaching this stuff for years.” What kept that from happening? Are we all benumbed, put into a stupor? Do we need a good old-fashioned dose of consciousness-raising? Is that actually going on now? Are we reaching a tipping point?
Tags: intellectual freedom
I think the sisters are on to something here. The Church does abuse its own (not that that’s a surprise). The interesting thing is the way they’re articulating it as abuse and responding to it.
From an article in National Catholic Reporter.
“The vast majority of U.S. women religious are not complying with a Vatican request to answer questions in a document of inquiry that is part of a three-year study of the congregations. Leaders of congregations, instead, are leaving questions unanswered or sending in letters or copies of their communities’ constitutions.” …
“Explaining the attitude in her community, St. Joseph Sr. Margaret Gregg said, “I feel the response was a thoughtful, respectful response to a very puzzling situation. The purpose of this investigation is unclear to me, given the level of the questions.” …
“All along, said one woman religious, the challenge has been to respond to the Vatican in a way that breaks a cycle of violence. She said that the women religious communities have attempted to respond by using a language “devoid of the violence” they found in the Vatican questionnaire and within the wider study. She characterized the congregation responses as “creative and affirming,” and part of an effort to set a positive example in “nonviolent resistance.”
“On the one hand we didn’t want to roll over and play dead,” she said. “So the question was, “How do you step outside a violent framework and do something new?’ That was the challenge that emerged.” One congregation, she said, cited a U.S. bishops’ statement concerning domestic abuse in its response letter to Millea. “The point is, there have to be more than two choices: Take the abuse and offer it up, or kill the abuser.”
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
There are structures and habits in church governance which work to deaden the intellectual life of the church.
The hierarchy is obsessed with obedience. Anyone ordained and anyone holding an office in the church takes a “profession of faith” which includes the following oath: “I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” There are other oaths.
The apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae addresses the catholicism of Catholic colleges and universities. It cites Canon 812: “Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.” In the U.S., “The mandatum is to be granted by the diocesan Bishop of the diocese in which the Catholic university is located.” The college or university is subject to the particular opinion of the bishop who happens to run the diocese in which the college or university finds itself. The history of the pedophilia scandal in the Church shows that a culture of obedience can too easily enable acquiescence to evil.
When it comes to sanctions against theologians, the CDF ignores the lessons of modern jurisprudence: precise definition of an offense; separation of the roles of judge, the prosecutor, and defense; equal access; the presumption of innocence; openness; appeal.
Definitive doctrine, a new category of doctrine created by John Paul II, is not “infallible” but which nevertheless is “irreformable” (i.e., can’t be changed) – a logical inconsistency on the face of it.
Obsession with obedience coupled with continuous extensions of papal-defined “definitive doctrine” (which cannot be changed even though it is not infallible) and the existence of mandatums and sanctions creates an environment which is suppressing the intellectual life of the church. Who can speak out on any issue not a part of the papal party line without potential repercussion? Not any untenured professor of theology under a mandatum, or anyone who has taken the oath of fidelity, which is everyone who has been ordained and anyone who holds an office in the church. They are all subject to sanctions if found to be uttering “erroneous” or “dangerous” doctrine. Even if such sanctions are rarely exercised, they intimidate.
For example, all it takes is “a steady muttering” to get a million dollar investigation going, as evidenced by the ongoing “visitation” of American religious women by the Vatican. “In his Tuesday interview with Vatican Radio, Cardinal Rode said ‘some criticism arrived from United States and an important representative of the U.S. Church warned me about certain irregularities or deficiencies in the lives of American women religious.’ Though Cardinal Rode did not say who the representative was, he also revealed the problems include ‘a certain secularist mentality that has spread among these religious families, perhaps even a certain ‘feminist spirit.’”
(The full story)
Benedict’s latest statement is on British politics, where he claims that legislation introduced by Labour to end discrimination “actually violates natural law” since it stops worshippers remaining true to their beliefs because it makes them admit homosexuals to the priesthood or face prosecution for discriminating against them. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an uprising of Thomists to stand up and argue the point that this attitude is a misreading if not complete distortion of natural law; who wants to get smacked upside the head by the CDF or some bishop’s mandatum?
“Creative thinkers who scrutinize the divine mysteries and give us a language to speak about them must be constantly aware that the church trusts them and protects them. If norms are needed to prevent deviations, norms are even more necessary to secure freedom for creative thinking.” (Orsy, p. 103)
The hierarchy is in a pickle. If they are truly rational about any one of the Church’s contentious issues (e.g., birth control, celibacy, women’s ordination, celibacy, etc.), it will create the expectation that they will be rational about all of them; the whole papal party line either stands inviolate or falls as a whole to the scrutiny of evidence-based reason. Until this scrutiny happens, the Church’s entire intellectual progress, its entire means to have faith seek understanding, will be stymied by the very people who are supposed to be its leaders.
I see issues such as lack of collegiality, mandatums, the injustice of the CDF investigations, mandatory celibacy, the role of women, etc. etc. not as progressive / conservative issues but as moral issues as they affect the ability of the Church to spread its message. These are questions of justice, not political preference. I think it’s important to clarify the nature and extent of the disfunction in the Church not to bash it but to get a handle on fixing it. The Church does abuse its own.
Tags: intellectual freedom, structures of governance
I’ve been thinking a lot about whether in fact we do suffer from an environment in which the intellectual life of the Church is deadened, what the specific nature of that deadening is, and what we might do about it. It’s a tricky question because I think it’s hard for Americans to think that their freedom to express themselves is impaired in any way, yet I think there’s something to it.
A recent Commonweal Blog post talks about this issue:
“How many of us know priests and lay people, active in parishes and dioceses, who compromise their core beliefs so as to carry on the good work they are doing within church structures? Whether the issue is eucharistic inclusivity, option for the poor, a thinking laity, married clergy, women’s ordination, homosexuality, contraception, our Church fosters a culture of keeping quiet so as to keep going. Sometimes the pressure from above is overt, but we are all subject to that subtlest form of institutional intimidation which everyone registers without it having to be articulated. We watch the few who persist in standing against it being marginalised or pushed out altogether; their whole lives can be taken apart. Many, both young and lifelong churchgoers, can no longer accept it and are walking away. Meanwhile those who slip into capitulating to it progressively deform their spiritual integrity. Of course, the Protestant tradition and secular society have long picked up the tenor of hypocrisy about Catholicism. After Vatican II, though, many of us felt we were on the way to being freed from it. But the volume now seems to be ratcheting up again. How can we commit to the Church we love without dancing to this particular tune?”
Letter in The Tablet, 3 January 2009
Tags: intellectual freedom
