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
What is sacramental imagination?
From Andrew Greeley:
“Religion… is imagination before it’s anything else. The Catholic imagination is different from the Protestant imagination. You know that: Flannery O’Connor is not John Updike.”
“The central symbol (of religion) is God. One’s “picture” of God is in fact a metaphorical narrative of God’s relationship with the world and the self as part of the world… The Catholic “classics” assume a God who is present in the world, disclosing Himself in and through creation. The world and all its events, objects, and people tend to be somewhat like God. The Protestant classics, on the other hand, assume a God who is radically absent from the world, and who discloses (Himself) only on rare occasions (especially in Jesus Christ and Him crucified). The world and all its events, objects, and people tend to be radically different from God.”
More at: http://www.alyosha.com/si/index.html
And here’s from another article at:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/august-5-2009/the-things-of-this-world/3846/
“Theologically, Christianity provides a language—and some doctrinal and historical metaphors or benchmarks—for two such imaginations: the sacramental and the dialectical. The first is broadly linked to Catholic ways of seeing and understanding God and the world, and the second, equally broadly and generally, to a Protestant sensibility.”
“Drawing on the work of Catholic theologian David Tracy, University of Notre Dame theology professor Mary Catherine Hilkert, in her book NAMING GRACE, gives a useful and succinct definition of the two imaginations: “The dialectical imagination stresses the distance between God and humanity, the hiddeness and absence of God, the sinfulness of human beings, the paradox of the cross, the need for grace as redemption and reconciliation…and the not-yet character of the promised reign of God. The sacramental imagination…emphasizes the presence of the God who is self-communicating love, the creation of human beings in the image of God…the mystery of the incarnation.”
Tags: loss of the sacred, sacramental imagination
I think the thing that’s missing, and the thing that would very much appeal to young people, are rituals that are more rich in what Andrew Greeley (hardly a conservative) calls the sacramental imagination. The Vatican II rediscovery of Scripture was marvelous but I think an unintended consequence was the thought that “Meaning could be conveyed better in word than in gesture, better in print than in procession, better in concept than in image.” (The Four Cultures of the West – John O’Malley, great book.)
As a result, church turned into a didactic exposition of texts rather than an experience of the sacred. In a play, rigorous adherence to the rules of drama, and the audience’s understanding of those rules, lead to the willing suspension of disbelief. I would likewise think that rigorous adherence to the rubrics of liturgy, and the congregation’s understanding of those rubrics, would lead to the creation of belief and to an entering into the liturgy which would allow the individuals in the congregation to let their souls be touched by and enriched by the grace of the goings on. This is exactly the involvement that the constant talking and chumminess of too many liturgies so effectively destroys.
Archbishop Gotfried Danneels has a great article on this and other thoughts on the liturgy in an America Magazine article:
Another good article I found a while back also struck me as capturing what has been lost. The philosopher and liturgist Romano Guardini visited the basilica of Monreale in 1929, and told this story in his “Voyage in Sicily.”
“There are different means of prayerful participation. One is realized by listening, speaking, gesturing. But the other takes place through watching. The first way is a good one, and we northern Europeans know no other. But we have lost something that was still there at Monreale: the capacity for living-in-the-gaze, for resting in the act of seeing, for welcoming the sacred in the form and event, by contemplating them.”
Tags: loss of the sacred, sacramental imagination
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
Clearly this book has captured my attention. I think the reason I consider it so important is that it clarifies the precise points where the Church has gone wrong operationally since Vatican II and the arguments that support the judgment that the Church’s current direction is in fact out of of step with tradition and theologically untenable. Well worth the read to understand the history and to chart a path for reform in the future.
Tags: Orsy, structures of governance
We all need to become conversant in canon law; it’s the operating manual of the Church.
“The Spirit of God is the one who brings the church into existence and sustains it. The church, however, by divine design needs visible structures to be a community of human beings and to operate in a human way. This need is the foundation of the ecclesial vocation of canon lawyers: they are called to be partners of the Spirit in building structures for the unfolding kingdom of God in human history.” (p. 143)
“If laws are for the well-being of the community, as they should be, then all laws, secular and religious, are more than justice. They are manifestations of the love that the scholastics called amor benevolentiae, ‘love that wants to give,’ or ‘love that wants to enrich the other.’ Virtues do not exclude each other: they blend and integrate … Thus justice becomes love.” (p. 144)
“We know in retrospect that the reception of every major council has been slow and painful. So is the reception of Vatican Council II, all the more so because its insights have consequences in the practical order and postulate a conversion in the habits of human thoughts and operations. This is the price the community must pay in exchange for a deeper understanding of the mysteries and a more intense participation in them–and a blessed price it is.
“Yet there should be no doubt: it shall be a fruitful time. As the energies latent in our dedicated laity, in the episcopal college, and in the church of Christ (now suffering from disunity) are given scope, there will be an abundant harvest of good fruit for the benefit of all. Our hope is well founded: the Spirit has taken the initiative.” ” (p. 147-8)
We have the insights from Vatican II but need to build the structures and norms that will give full scope to those insights.
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
In this chapter, Orsy addresses how the new papal invention of “definitive doctine” compromises the intellectual freedom necessary to properly develop doctrine. “… the demand for stability and the imperative of development are vital forces in any living community.” (p. 105)
He describes how you can tell when development of doctrine is healthy: it respects the foundations of the institution, shows a harmonious progress from the old to the new, the once hidden potentials of the old are revealed, it is filled with energy. If it is unhealthy, it destabilizes the foundations, has a corrosive impact on identity, undermines original principles, is a radical break, shows no vigor of life, and weakens the institution.
“The Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, mandated a healthy balance between stability and development. It’s canon 750 stressed the importance of stability … Canon 218 asserted the imperative of development and the need for ‘just freedom’ in research …
The two canons together stated well the right and duty of the community–to preserve and to let evolve the evangelical doctrine. (p. 108)
Inventing Definitive Doctrine with Ad tuendam fidem
“This balance established by the Code of Canon Law, however, was changed in 1998 with the promulgation of the Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem. The letter introduced into, and imposed on, the church a new category of teaching, called ‘definitive,’ and explained it as not infallible but irreformable. Effectively, it not verbally, it transferred some freely debated doctrines from the field of ‘doubtful things’ to the field of the ‘necessary things,’ where no question must be raised anymore about their unchangeable nature. …
“Thus the document places each and every point of teaching that has been declared ‘definitive’ by the papal magisterium into the body of ‘the doctrine of the Catholic Church,’ even when such a declaration does not fulfill the stringent criteria of a papal definition …” In other words, is not infallible. (p. 108-9)
Ratzinger also wrote a Commentary (not part of it or signed by the CDF) listing examples of definitive doctrine, like no ordination for women, the invalidity of Anglican ordination, etc.
So now doctrine doesn’t have to be infallible to be “irreformable.” And sanctions were added to canon law to enforce observance of doctrines determined to be definitive. Gotta love it.
But Ad tuendam fidem itself is not infallible because it is not a solemn ex cathedra pronouncement. So even by the loony logic of infallibility, it isn’t infallible.
It extends doctrinal foundations beyond traditional limits by attributing “unchangeable permanency to doctrines to which the universal church has not committed itself infallibly.” (p. 112) Plus, it just basically made up the category of non-infallible but unchangeable. And it stifles real thought.
And you wonder why so many people think the church is nuts.
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
Orsy sets secular legal wisdom side by side with how justice is administered in the church.
He takes as an example The 1997 Regulations for the Examination of Doctrines from the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s 1500 words, 29 articles, and describes the process by which a doctrine in circulation may be judged “erroneous or dangerous to the faith” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (e.g., the smackdown of a theologian).
These regulations say that the bishop has the right and duty to “exercise pastoral solicitude” but that the Holy See “has the power to intervene, and intends to intervene, whenever a publication constitutes a grave danger for the faith and the impact reaches beyond the boundaries of a local episcopal conference.” (p. 92) Today, this could be any publication on the planet.
Secular legal wisdom says:
“Justice demands a precise definition of an offense”
“The Regulations name two offenses, namely the spreading of ‘erroneous doctrine’ and ‘dangerous doctrine.’ Both are two broad for comfort.
“Erroneous” or “dangerous” doctrine is much too vague a definition of an offence. “Totalitarian states like to have crimes broadly defined …” (p. 97)
“’Erroneous doctrine’ can have different meanings in the realm of religious beliefs and opinions. Catholic theology has always carefully distinguished revealed doctrine (‘articles of faith’) from theological opinions held by scholars or some church officials. They are not of the same category. If a proposition is judged erroneous, to understand the gravity of the error one must know the authority of the ‘truth’ that it denies. Vatican Council II insisted on a ‘hierarchy of truths,’ with each truth demanding assent to a specific degree, yet the Regulations use one broad category that opens the door for a uniform prosecution of errors, whether major or minor. There is a difference between obstinate rejection of an article of faith and thoughtful opposition to an opinion held by an office of the Holy See.
“The expression ‘dangerous doctrine’ gives an even larger scope to the investigators: with it they can reach far and wide as it has no firm and objective limits. … the perception of a danger can be subjective and deceptive: much depends on the mind of the observer.” (p. 97)
“Justice is best served when the respective roles of the judge, the prosecutor, and the defendant’s advocate are kept separate”
“If the office of the investigator appoints all of them, the balance of the trial is disturbed and the objectivity of the decision is questioned. … In the Regulations, this well-established separation of the roles is not honored. The same organs of the Congregation are involved in, or can influence on the initial investigation, the articulation of the charges, the defense of the writings and of the author, and eventually the final decision.” (p. 97)
“Equity, the perfection of justice, demands that each of the opposing parties has a similar opportunity to plead before the judge.”
“The Regulations grant different measures, far from any equal amount of time, to the accuser and the defender. During the first part of the ordinary process when the crucial decision is taken about the conformity of the author’s writings to the demands of orthodoxy, he is absent. He is not even informed that a process has been initiated.
“Another glaring lack of equity (to say the least) emerges when the outcome of the examination is negative, and the Congregation finds the author’s propositions ‘erroneous or dangerous.’” The bishop or superior is informed, reputations can be ruined, and the author may still not know he has been accused.
“Our church has nothing to lose and much to gain by offering the elementary courtesy to Christian thinkers to explain their mind right from the moment when suspicion arises against their writings. (p. 98-9)
The presumption of innocence
“The ‘principle of the presumption of innocence’ is an inviolable part of the criminal proceedings in modern legal systems. Such a presumption, however, is not mentioned in the Regulations. (p. 99)
Justice demands openness
“The virtue of justice, as integrated with faith, hope, and love among Christians, is a powerful factor in forging unity in the community. For this reason, it is never enough to do justice, it must be done publicly. The people should see that justice is done. … “The Regulations fall short of the standards of an open trial. In particular, the first part of the ordinary proceedings is shrouded in complete secrecy.” (p. 100)
An extreme penalty
“Excommunication is an extreme penalty in a Christian community. But “The Regulations ignore a crucial problem: the crime of heresy is an ‘obstinate denial’ of an article of faith (Canon 751); it is a surrender to falsehood while one sees the light. … it is not an ordinary event. Even if it has been established that the writings of a person contain heretical propositions, it does not follow necessarily that he is guided by a perverse intention. To rush into the imposition of an extreme sentence (perhaps without ever having listened to the author) can hardly be the sign and symbol of justice–let alone Christian mercy.” (p. 101-2)
The opportunity for appeal is an integral part of any good judicial system
“The Regulations are clear: once the Congregation has declared that the author is guilty of heresy, apostasy, or schism, the author must be held excommunicated, and ‘against such a declaration no recourse is admitted.’ The Explanatory Notes provide the following reason: throughout the process the pope himself is involved: hence, there cannot be any room for appeal. The underlying assumption seems to be that throughout, papal infallibility somehow plays a part in the process and, at the end, seals the sentence. But Catholic theology allows no such assumption. To exclude, therefore, any possibility of a miscarriage of justice would be presumptuous.
“At this point the Regulations reveal a substantial structural weakness: they create a first instance tribunal that, in the course of the same trial, becomes a supreme court.” (p. 101)
Conclusion
“In the Catholic world, the best way to promote and safeguard the doctrine of faith is to create a climate of trust where the process described by St. Anselm of Canterbury as fides quaerens intellectum, ‘faith seeking understanding,’ can flourish. Such a search for understanding is carried out mostly (but not exclusively) by professional theologians. To attract young and talented persons to choose theological research and reflection as their vocation, to strengthen those who are already dedicated to that work, and to lift the spirit of those who are struggling with the hard issues of our days, an environment of freedom and confidence is indispensable, a condicio sine qua non. Such an environment cannot exist if investigations, accusations, and even condemnations are allowed to take place in secrecy.
“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.” (p. 103)
“In truth, creative thinkers are one of the greatest assets of the church: they let the internal riches of the evangelical message unfold. … This was the ministry of Friar Thomas Aquinas and of Cardinal John Henry Newman.” (p. 103)
“The judicial procedures of the Regulations are of human origin. They are not rooted in any divine precept. They are the product of another age, not suited for our ecumenical times. To reform such procedures would be to obey Vatican Council II: Christ summons the church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is a human institution here on earth (UR 6).” (p. 103-4)
This situation is untenable. A church that proports to fight against injustice in the world cannot tolerate injustice inside of itself. As Garry Wills says, it is “self-condemned.”
Tags: canon law, Orsy, structures of governance
Happy Feast Day 
Since I’m on a Ladislas Orsy roll, let’s see what he has to day about the importance of Aquinas to the Church:
“Disputations in the spirit of openness and charity always had a place of pride in the intellectual history of the Christian community. St. Thomas of Aquinas was a supreme master of it. He liked to preface his affirmations by contrasting questions. “Such a venerable tradition should not become extinct. After all, the entire body of the faithful has been entrusted with the fullness of the evangelical message. Hence, no one should ever be left out of the process of seeking its fuller understanding.” (p. xii)
Tags: favorite stuff
“A reasonable and legitimate question: Why is there throughout the Catholic Church so much aversion to canon law? A tentative answer: because our people, blessed with a sense of faith, instinctively sense that some (many?) of our laws are not in the service of values of higher order.” (p. 81)
So he suggests a thorough revision based on solid theological grounds:
“A comprehensive critical study of the relationship between the values asserted by the Council and the postconciliar legislation remains to be done. We are far from having accomplished an authentic aggiornamento of our canon law. Nevertheless, I can think of two significant initiatives toward progress that are immediately feasible. One is in the realm of theory and the other in the field of practice.
“1. In preparation for a future revision of the Code of Canon Law, we should have a group of competent and dedicated theologians and canon lawyers that work closely together to identify afresh the theological values that need legal support. The result of their study could be submitted to the (future) pontifical commission charged with reviewing the whole system. [me - or bishop’s commission] If such a preparatory work is well done, and if it is made public, it would be difficult to ignore it. [me - !!!] Its content would give it authority. That is a worthy challenge for a professional Canon Law Society.
“2. In the field of practice, the reform should start with the administration of justice. We should make our courts autonomous (as much as possible without hurting any dogma) and start dispensing fair and speedy justice. The doctrine of sacramentally conferred episcopal power need not exclude operational independence. What an asset it would be for a new evangelization if the Catholic Church had the reputation of being exemplary to the nations in the administration of justice!” (p. 89-90)
Indeed. Instead of the opposite.
Tags: canon law
You can go back to the previous page or You can go forward to the next page
