Hi. These are notes for the firsts three talks that Father Hugh gave at our Wednesday evening dinners/lectures/discussions. Really good stuff. Hope you enjoy it.
Chuck
Issues in the Catholic Church, 1910-2010St. Paul's, February 2010
Fr. Hugh Feiss, OSB
This sketch of issues that have been discussed in the Church since Vatican II, and their historical background, was developed as a preliminary introduction to discussing some of them at more length. We will take up a few in the March and April that you indicated interested you: (1) Faith, Questioning, Disagreement and Communion; (2) Church Teaching on Sexuality and How to Represent It in the Political Sphere; (3) Interpreting the Bible; (4) Mary and the Saints.
We are making "Faith, Questioning, Disagreement and Communion" the first topic in order to make clearer than these pages did the scope for questioning and disagreement in the church and the different kinds of doctrines and disciplines in the church which range from solemnly declared truths (Christ is true God and true Man, Mary's Assumption), to serious teaching (Ordination of Women), to considered opinions (immigration law reform), required observances (no meat on Ash Wednesday), and even strategic options (how to try to limit the number of abortions). How is one to deal with questions that arise in regard to all these; what do you do when you find yourself in disagreement with what the church teaches, how does one defend the church's teaching against critics or explain it to confused Catholics?
PART ONE: THE CHURCH INTERNALLY: ROLES IN THE CHURCH
Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church took more work than any other and was arguably the most important. It chose to begin with a chapter on "the mystery of the Church," in which it employed biblical metaphors to evoke rather than define what the Church is, since as a community constituted by the Holy Spirit, which is both an institution and a communion, holy and sinful, it cannot be fully described, especially in constitutional terms. The metaphors most emphasized were body of Christ, bride of Christ, and people of God. It was the latter that was the topic of chapter 2. A people is a visible and historical reality, and so the term was less mystical than the other two just mentioned. By beginning with it, the Council chose to start from what all Christians have in common, the baptism by which they are made members of God's people. The image of "people of God" also affirmed the Church's Jewish roots. Then in the next three chapters the Council discussed specific roles or states with the Church: clergy, laity and-after a section on the universal call to holiness--religious.
This approach was an invitation to start thinking of the church as the whole people of God, not just the bishops. It may also have helped shift emphasis toward intra-church quarrels about governance; in any case, since then the Spirit-inspired, invisible mystery of the church seems not to be emphasized as much as it might be
I. THE PAPACY
History
Back in the 11th and 12th centuries, the popes had worked hard to make the church independent of secular control, by insisting on the right of the pope to appoint bishops and of bishops the right to appoint parish priests. One dimension of that effort was to insist of clerical celibacy, so that clergy would be free of economic and political entanglements and family ambitions.
After the residence of the popes in Avignon (1309-1378), the papal schism during which there were two claimants to the papacy (1378-1417), and the Protestant Reformation (1517-1550), the church's independence was eroded. During the Enlightenment Period (1600-1800) nation states sought to establish internal control and to jockey for position on the world stage in various wars and alliances. In England, the king or queen was the head of the church; in Catholic countries like France, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and elsewhere, the state tried to control the church by insisting on the right to appoint or approve bishops, abbots and other church officials, and to control if not confiscate church finances.
The French Revolution accentuated the power of the state. Its ethos was to subordinate the church even more, if not to eliminate it altogether. Clergy, if allowed, were to be employees of the state and they had to swear agreement to the new constitution for the clergy. Napoleon kept several popes in prison, when they wouldn't agree to the claims of the revolutionary government to control religion tightly. Thousands of priests were killed. The manhandling of the pope aroused considerable public sympathy for the papal office.
Pius IX (1846-1878) came into office with a reputation for sympathy for liberal political policies. He was still ruler of the central part of Italy. However, radical events turned him into a political reactionary; in 1870 the Papal States were lost forever. He called the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) that was hastily suspended when Roman was invaded during the last months of the Papal States. Before Vatican I closed, it taught about the relations of faith and reason in coming to know the existence of God and declared the infallibility of papal teaching, under certain specified conditions, regarding revealed truths on faith and morals. Pius IX was a likeable person and that counter-balanced the reactionary attitudes of his later years.
Subsequent Popes--Leo XIII (1878-1903) Pius X (1903-1914), Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII (1939-1958) John XXIII (1958-1963), Paul VI, John-Paul I, John-Paul II, and Benedict XVI-had high respect for the most part. Deprived of the Papal States, their authority was moral and spiritual rather than political. They maintained diplomatic ties with most nations, but tried to remain politically neutral. In 1929 a concordant was signed with Italy, which gave the Vatican a small amount of territory and some financial compensation to guarantee its independence from Italy.
Issues
During the 20th century the high prestige of the papacy tended to foster centralization of church government. The central government of the church is usually referred to as "The Vatican" after the name of the territory where it is located. This has created some tension about the respective roles of local bishops and bishops' conferences and the papacy. Some argue that the church has become too centralized, so that it violates its own principle of "subsidiarity," which says that decisions should be left at the lower levels unless there is an evident need to move them to a higher level. Less centralized Protestant and Orthodox churches (the latter tend to be organized as national churches) are prodding the papacy to rethink its role as part of the movement toward ecumenical convergence and reunion. That is, how should we imagine the role of the papacy in, let's say, a reunion of the Eastern Rite Catholic and Orthodox churches in the Ukraine, or a union of the Roman Catholic and Coptic churches, or the Roman Catholic and Swedish Lutheran Churches.
Some specific issues currently have to do with approving liturgical books and the biblical translations used in them, appointing bishops, and oversight of theological teaching. One of the Vatican Congregations, the CDF, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, oversees theological teaching. Pope Benedict was head of it for many years; now it is an American, Cardinal Levada. From time to time, they ask a theologian to explain and/or correct something he has written. Some say that the CDF is too heavy-handed.
II. CLERGY, RELIGIOUS …
History
Holy Orders is a sacrament which can be received in three steps or orders: deacon, priest and bishop. The pope has to be a bishop (since he is bishop of Rome); cardinals could be anyone, though according to current church practice they must be a bishop, with a few elderly--and so non-voting--exceptions who are priests. Deacons had continued to exist in the Orthodox, Oriental and Eastern Catholic churches. Vatican II decided to make some changes: they wanted to state clearly that the three stages of the Holy Orders were all sacraments; they emphasized that the bishops together with the pope form a collegiate body or community which in virtue of episcopal ordination is collectively responsible for the whole church (beyond the individual bishop's appointment to responsibility for specific diocese) and they recognized that bishops of a nation or region could form a conference which worked together to minister to that country or region (e.g., in preparing catechisms or setting up seminaries or whatever). These conferences have subsequently pretty much rendered obsolete the old system of bishops forming provinces under the direction of an archbishop, although in large nations like the US the bishops are divided into regions that have some shared activities and often contains several archbishops.
.
In the Western church the presence of permanent deacons had pretty well died out by the 20th century and had been on the decline for some centuries before that. There were various reasons, but one surely was that in much of the Middle Ages there were priests who could do everything, so there was less need for deacons. However, Vatican II decided to restore the deaconate. At first, the restoration was fairly ragged, but gradually programs and procedures have become more established. Over what is usually a four-year, but part-time formation period, Deacons are trained to preach, officiate at baptisms and marriages, take part as ministers in the Eucharist, and so forth. Traditionally, they had big responsibilities for the church's charitable activities. At the time of his ordination, a deacon can be either married or unmarried, but after he is ordained he cannot marry.
Issues
At the time of Vatican II, the number of priests and sisters was generally adequate in Europe and North America, which also supplied missionary priests and religious to Africa, China and the rest of South-East Asia. Vatican II coincided with profound cultural changes, which in ways that are not well understood caused a sharp decline in religious practice in Europe and to a precipitous fall in vocations to the priesthood and religious life in Europe and North America. Those who dislike the changes brought by Vatican II blame them, but this seems unfounded. The change in the opportunities open to women certainly affected vocations to women's religious orders; the rapid changes in society blurred the role of priest and religious and diminished awareness of the transcendent; new attitudes and permissiveness in regard to sexuality made celibacy seem less desirable or even impossible. One possible contribution of Vatican II to the decline in religious vocations after the Council was that it insisted that lay life is also a road to holiness. One could ask, if that is so, why go the "bother" of being a priest or religious?
A host of issues swirls around priesthood and religious life. Why are there not more men and women joining religious orders or going to the seminary? Do we need a new form of religious life? Should celibacy be made optional for priests? Can and should women be ordained deacons, priests, bishops, and if the latter, popes? Why are more conservative orders-e.g., women's orders that continue to wear very distinct garb-attracting more vocations. Are they are niche phenomenon appealing to a conservative minority, or do they have something others have lost?
Incontestably, the pedophilia scandals among Catholic clergy have hurt the reputation of the Catholic priesthood in the United States and Ireland particularly. The actual abuse is awful, but the hypocrisy of those who did it, and the misjudgment of the bishops who didn't remove them from ministry, thinking that pedophilia was a moral lapse, not a deep-seated perversion, or fearing the damage to the church's reputation, have added to the backlash. Having read a great deal about the scandal while it was occurring and having talked with an outspoken psychiatrist about it at length, I think that it is probably true that professions which deal with children or adolescents attract pedophiles-the incidence of pedophilia among ministers of other faiths is probably about the same as among Catholic priests. Statistically, 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children. Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases. Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls. Most offenders who abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles; however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.
Two good things have come out of the scandal. Our society, and especially our church, is much more aware of the danger and the church especially has taken extensive measures to guard against it. In our diocese one measure is "safe environment training." Another is to invite anyone who knows of any sexual abuse or who claims to have suffered from it to let the bishop know. The other good outcome is that the tendency toward tolerance of pedophilia, and even to see it as cutting edge behavior, has been squelched-witness the reaction of Roman Polanski's arrest in Switzerland to answer charges of sexual abuse of a young girl. The American press was almost universally condemnatory.
III . . . AND LAITY
HISTORY
Relations between laity and clergy have varied throughout the ages. In medieval times there was nothing like democracy as we know it. Lay lords, kings, and emperors exercised considerable control over the church in regard to the appointment of clergy. The popes of the 11th and 12th centuries struggled hard to get the church free of such lay control. They also said that as the spiritual representatives of God they had power over lay rulers to insist on upright behavior, respect for the church and so forth, and at times the popes claimed the right to depose unjust rulers. However, there was nothing like democracy as we know it, either in secular life or in the church. In places in the Middle Ages, and in some specific places today, the clergy of a diocese or part of them, have the right to nominate candidates for bishops, who then are approved by the papacy. According to the Rule of St. Benedict, monks elected their abbot, but once elected he had the final say, though he was supposed to consult the community on all major decisions. (Now he would have to have majority approval for a major decision, like admitting a new member, building a church, and so forth.)
In a hierarchical society lords ruled over peasants and bishops over priests. Priests themselves had a great deal of authority in their parishes; they were often the most educated person there and had great deal of respect. In my youth, a parish was run by the priest, but lay volunteers did many things: from teaching and administering religious education programs, boy and girl scouts, sports leagues, Knights of Columbus (and many other societies), parish dinners, soup kitchens and other services to the poor, taking census, working on fund drives, helping keep up the parish buildings and so forth. Often there was a parish school; the principal was usually a sister, but the ultimate authority was the pastor.
This picture has altered radically in 40 years. The pastor now has a parish counsel and a finance counsel and a pastoral counsel. The school may be closed; if it is not, it probably has all or almost all lay teachers. The percentage of working mothers has risen dramatically, so women are not able to volunteer the way they used to. The number of lay employees is way up; there is probably a deacon working in the parish, most often as a volunteer or close to it. Some of the traditional organizations have died or have only older members, since older people are the only ones with time to donate. A paid catechist probably runs the catechetical program. Tens of thousands of lay people have enrolled in theology and ministry programs, some in hopes of finding full time employment in the church; others in order to enrich their faith and volunteer.
Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church taught that the specific calling of the laity is to bring gospel values to life in the secular sphere. In other words, all this involvement of the laity in the parish is not the primary and distinctive apostolic work of the laity. As lawyers, they are to make the justice system more just and equitable; as car mechanics they are to make cars run better and pollute less; as teachers they are to try to improve the education and formation of the young. In their professions they are to speak out on moral issues and to give good example.
Issues
Granted the rapid changes just discussed, there are plenty of issues left. Should there be more democracy in the church: e.g., Should lay people have more or quasi-complete control of churches' physical assets? Should lay people have more say in the appointment of bishops and priests? How much should lay input be determinative of church teaching? What is the place of public opinion and lobbying in the church? How can the laity be supported and mobilized to bring gospel values to the various segments of secular society? How can lay people-children, teenagers, young adults, adults-be formed in the doctrines, traditions and practice of their faith.
4. POLARITY
History
Our nation has become polarized: Fox news vs. the New York Times or the New Yorker. Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress where votes are on party lines. The same is true at least to some extent in the US Catholic church: e.g., National Catholic Register vs National Catholic Reporter. In these two newspapers and in much of the media the line between news and editorializing has blurred. People hug labels like "orthodox" and "liberal" like blankets or wield them like swords. This makes it hard to have intelligent conversations or debates. I think that the polarization may be a special sin of my generation; perhaps it will lessen with time. I think you are too smart and too good to fall into it.
.
One way of thinking about the polarization in the Catholic Church is to ask what people think about the 1950s. Conservatives look at the 50s through rose-colored glasses; liberals see them through dark, gloomy ones. Probably both views are distorted.
Issues
One of the dangers is that liberal Catholics will drift off into other churches which are very vague about doctrine and morals, whereas conservative ones will convert to Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, or they will hook up with schismatic Catholics like the Society of Pius X. The latter make the Mass as renewed at Vatican II a benchmark; they insist on saying Mass according to the old way. Such leakage is probably inevitable though.
Meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI is trying to heal the schism with the society of Pius X. He has extended the possibility of using the pre-Vatican II mass. The code words are "Tridentine" (i.e., the Mass prayers and rubrics as set by Pius V) for the pre-Vatican II Mass, and "Novus Ordo" (Mass texts and rubrics revised after Vatican II) for the post-Vatican II Mass. As we saw earlier the difference is not in substance but in the level and kind of participation. The schismatic conservatives, though, object that the New Mass is not even valid. Their arguments seem very convoluted to me. It seems that much of the energy on this issue comes from using the Mass form as a symbol for their anger at the changes that have been introduced. The danger there is that they will become a fifth column within the church, because they more or less completely reject Vatican II. The last few popes' efforts to restore unity with the Eastern Orthodox churches will certainly not pull the church in a liberal direction on most issues. More of that when we get to Ecumenism.
Can we agree to disagree on non-essential and even on non-defined matters, but live together peacefully if our view does not prevail?
Spirituality might be another issue. Vatican II, I think, tried to focus spirituality on the most essential things: the death and rising of Christ, the sacraments and the Bible. A typical 1970s church highlighted altar, pulpit and cross (sometimes showing a risen Christ), and otherwise was fairly plain. It would seem that such an austere focus on the center-the Paschal Mystery--doesn't work for everyone. At least there is growing interest in devotions like Benediction, the Rosary, Divine Mercy, and so forth. Probably need to know how to have these in a theologically responsible form without losing sight of the center.
The coming of the world wide church puts many of these arguments in perspective. A Chinese Catholic or an African Catholic is not likely to be enamored of the Tridentine Mass.
PART TWO: LIVING TRADITION IN THE CHURCH
1. THE BIBLE
History
The understanding and interpretation of the Bible began to change fairly radically in the 19th century, especially in Germany, when scholars began applying to it the newly refined methods of textual and historical analysis. At first, Catholics were very suspicious of these new trends. For example, early in the 20th century, Pope Pius X issued some rather heavy-handed criticisms of new theories about the writing of the book of Genesis. In 1909 he provided for the founding of the Biblical Institute in Rome, which has been administered by the Jesuit Order and is now one of the leading institutes of biblical studies in the world. A second Biblical Institute, the Ecole Biblique, administered by the Dominican Order, is located in Israel.
In 1943, Pope Pius XII, issued an encyclical, that is, a general letter, on biblical studies, called Divino afflante spiritu, which was a judicious endorsement of modern biblical studies: i.e., the study of ancient languages, the effort of interpreters to understand the mind of the author, a more supple understanding of how the Holy Spirit inspires the biblical authors, the importance of figuring out what sort of writing a biblical book is: short story, folk history, law code, and so forth.
What Pope Pius XII began with this encyclical was endorsed and furthered by Vatican II's document On Divine Revelation, and by other documents of the council, e.g., the ones on liturgy and the church, which sought to bring out the biblical basis and richness of Catholic teaching and practice. Moreover, the contemporary Pontifical Biblical Commission has offered solid guidance for biblical studies.
Vatican II deepened and to some extent altered the Catholic understanding of the relation of Scripture and Tradition. In a nutshell, it said Scripture and Tradition form one interlocking whole. There was Catholic life and thought being handed on before any NT book was written; the NT books express what was the tradition up to the time they were written. At the same time, once written the NT books were recognized as divinely inspired and collected into an official list ("canon") that is our Bible today. What the Bible says is normative for the faith of the Church ever after. This recognition of how the Bible came to be written provides a challenge to the Protestant understanding of "Scripture alone," as does the recognition that no one reads the Bible (or the newspaper) in a vacuum, but as someone shaped by the tradition(s) in which he lives.
Since Vatican II, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish scholars have been able to work closely together on biblical studies, when they all approach the biblical writings as historians and detached observers trying to figure out what the biblical text means. This is called the historical-critical study of the Bible. For instance, for the last 150 years or more there have been repeated efforts to get at the "historical Jesus," that is, to figure out what historical research-archeological and literary-can tell us about who Jesus was.
Issues
There are obvious limitations to the historical-critical approach-the authors of the gospel did not write like modern historians, but as believers writing for other believers. If we try to separate out their faith in Jesus in order to see what we can know using ordinary historical methods, we get a distorted and partial picture of what they tell us about Jesus. Also, historical research alone will never show us that Jesus was who the church believes him to be-fully God and fully man. So, recently, there have been an increasing number of voices arguing that, without abandoning the strengths and accomplishments of the historical-critical method, we need to explore new ways to interpret the bible that give more scope to faith and devotion.
One very positive outcome of all this has been a growing acquaintance of Catholics with the Bible. There have been new, more readable and accurate translations, a much richer selection of biblical readings at Mass, and various bible study programs. Oddly, while Catholics who have been touched with these efforts, now know much more about the Bible than say Catholics of 100 years ago, overall knowledge of the bible has declined sharply in our society. That was evident in Mike Huckabee's campaign for the Presidency. He is a minister and his speeches were full of biblical allusions that most of his listeners didn't get, but that people like me just took for granted. English literature professors notice the same thing decline in biblical knowledge. So how should the Bible function in the lives of Catholics, and how can the come to know the Bible better?
A final issue concerns bible translations, and derivatively translations of the liturgical books. The issue boils down to how literal to be; the alternative to "literal" is dynamic equivalent. Here, for example, is the wonderful Masai Creed worked out by people of that culture in collaboration with the Holy Ghost Fathers. It doesn't claim to be a translation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed we say at Sunday Mass, but such a paraphrase illustrates what "dynamic equivalence" could be if carried to extreme.
We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created Man and wanted Man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the Earth. We have known this High God in darkness, and now we know Him in the light. God promised in the book of His word, the Bible, that He would save the world and all the nations and tribes.
We believe that God made good His promise by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left His home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He lay buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, He rose from the grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.
We believe that all our sins are forgiven through Him. All who have faith in Him must be sorry for their sins, be baptised in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love and share the bread together in love, to announce the Good News to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for Him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.
Another issue that involves the Bible, the Liturgy and the Catechism, is gender language. Take this phrase: "The salvation promised to Abraham and his descendants forever." Should this be changed to "Abraham, Sarah and their descendants forever"? Or when Paul in his epistles addresses his readers as "adelphoi" which literally means brothers, but could mean "brothers and sisters" how do we translate. In translating the Catechism of the Catholic Church into English-for all the English speaking people in the world, not just for the US--it was decided not to use inclusive language, but to use "man" to stand for both men and women. Or consider "homo factus est," "and he became man/a human being." Homo means human being not man, but in earlier English (and to some degree in Latin," "he became man" meant not just that Jesus became a human being, but they he identified with humankind (one of the meanings of "man") and we lose that when we translate "a human being." Would it be better to translate "he became flesh," which of course is not exactly what "homo factus est" means. The liturgical books we have were translated from the Latin forty years ago. An upcoming revision, mainly at the insistence of the Vatican, will be more literal. So, there is lots to argue about-but the argument is over more than translation theory; it ferocity derives from feminist issues, who calls the shots, and how far should we go toward adapting to current ways of thinking and speaking.
2. LITURGY
History
Liturgy in itself is a conservative activity. On February 3, St. Blaise's feastday, we have the blessing of throats It is a medieval customs that lasted all this time. It amazing to look at the oldest descriptions of the Eucharist from the second - fourth century; most of them are very similar to the way we do the Eucharist today. The Council of Trent (1545-1563), which was convened to make a thorough reform of the church and respond to Protestant criticisms and theology, called for a new missal (i.e., sacramentary and lectionary) to be used throughout the whole church. That way they hoped to avoid abuses and the development of odd practices. The Protestant insistence on the vernacular seems to have caused the Catholic Church to reaffirm the validity of Latin. The new missal was published under St. Pius V (1550). It was revised a number of times after that. It was supposed to be used everywhere. But in the 18th c. in France, especially, some bishops with Gallican (nationalistc) or Jansenist (rigorist) leanings published their own missals.
In the 19th century these local variants were eliminated at the urging of pioneers in what came to be known as the "liturgical movement." That movement wanted people to be more involved in the liturgy, and so promoted the use of bilingual or vernacular missals so people could follow along in their vernacular language. An enormous amount of historical scholarship led to a far better understanding of how the liturgy had developed over time. This led to some commonly held conclusions: some parts of the post-Council of Trent way of celebrating the Eucharist were probably extraneous and unnecessary; there were too many saints days; the biblical readings should be expanded and enriched; the whole Mass should be in the vernacular; music in the vernaculars should be developed; people should more actively participate; the liturgy is something quite distinct from private prayer; that sermons should expound the Scriptures; communion should be with both the bread and the cup. All of this was widely held among scholars and liturgical reformers by 1960, although the appreciation of these ideas among clergy and laity was spotty.
When Vatican II was called the first document to be ready for discussion was the document on the Liturgy. It called for a thorough revision of all the liturgical rites, including sacraments and the Liturgy of the Hours. Doing all of that took about 10 years after the council.
Issues
Since the liturgy touches the whole person-it is not primarily a matter of words-it has served as a central symbol of the changes Vatican II introduced. Those who opposed those changes tended to make Eucharistic liturgy their rallying cry. The most radical said that Pius V had decreed that the liturgical books should never be changed, which of course was not what he meant. A group of priests and people, led by Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991), a Frenchman who was an missionary archbishop in Africa, opposed the changes introduced by Vatican II and insisted that only Mass celebrated according to Pius V's missal was valid (although they accepted the last official version of that, from 1962, which had the accumulated changes since 1575). They called themselves the Society of Pius X and are still around in various places. Pope Benedict is trying to get them to return to the church. As a gesture of good will he allowed use of the 1962 version of the Tridentine Missal and lifted some excommunications of the illegally ordained Society of Pius X bishops, but so far they have not shown much enthusiasm for entering into full communion with the church. Pope Benedict has been criticized for yielding too much ground to these dissenters, in part because he is thought to be sympathetic with their more conservative theological inclinations.
Compared to that issue, others concerning liturgy are minor. What sort of music is best to sing in church will always be an issue. Is singability or musical quality most important? What are the roles of choir and congregation? Should there be liturgical dance? How much local adaptation should there be (the word used for this is "inculturalization")? And currently there is the debate about changes in the new translations that are supposed to come out in 2011, which in the big scheme of things are actually fairly minor.
3. MARY AND THE SAINTS
History
Devotion to the saints and to Mary developed slowly in the early church. In a church where martyrdom was a possibility, martyrs were heroes, models of fidelity. They were also dead, and Christians venerated their burial places and honored the anniversaries of their death (which they referred to as their "birthdays."). Then other saintly Christians-confessors, virgins, monks, pastors, teachers, were also honored. At the Reformation Luther and other critics claimed that the veneration of the saints had become rife with abuse and superstition. Influenced by humanism's criticism of medieval culture, they rejected legendary accounts and pilgrimages to shrines that claimed to have miracle working relics and so forth. It became common among a certain kind of fundamentalist Protestant to accuse Catholics of worshipping the saints, which today is an absurd idea.
At Vatican II, the main issue was how much emphasis to give to Mary; e.g., a special document just on her. Some devout bishops seem to have felt (and still do) that one cannot give too much veneration to Mary. Others felt that it was important to put things in perspective. The latter won out: Mary was included in the document on the church, as the final chapter (8). The previous chapter, called "the pilgrim church" paved the way, by pointing to the communion of saints which unites all the baptized who are faithful, whether they are still alive or already dead. Mary, then, is seen as a member of the communion of saints, even if a uniquely privileged one.
Issues
Some Marian devotions are controversial: e.g., promises associated with making the nine first Fridays or five first Saturdays, or Medjugorje. Overall, though, there is little in Marian devotions that is required of any of us, and the church tries to keep abuses from creeping in, although generally people are given the benefit of the doubt, because of their sincerity.
The more Catholic-leaning Anglicans and Lutherans are open to devotion to Mary, but Marian doctrine and devotion remains an abrasive issue with many Protestants.
A few theologians go so far as to question such doctrines as the virginity of Mary, arguing that the Virgin birth was a symbol rather than a fact or that Mary had other children after Jesus, even if he was virginally conceived. On the other hand, there are some people, very devoted to Mary, who want Mary declared the "Mediatrix" (feminine of "mediator") or "Co-Redemptrix." Their explanation of these titles is usually orthodox, but if so, then the question is why use them if they are misleading and ecumenically harmful by seeming to undercut the unique role of Christ as the one Mediator between God and humankind.
As far as the saints go, there is not a great deal of controversy. Some people are offended by the legends about the saints: e.g., about Santiago de Compostela who body was supposed to have miraculously washed ashore. I find that if in such matters one can't really separate out the hard facts from the bigger story it doesn't matter much. These are stories; their point is not really historical, but theological or inspirational. However, there is something a little disconcerting about praying to a saint who may well have never lived-e.g., St. Christopher or St. Philomena, but I suppose there are enough "Christ-bearers" and "Beloveds" or "Lovers" in heaven that someone there will hear our prayers.
PART THREE: THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD
1. THE GLOBAL PICTURE: A WORLD CHURCH
History
The changing demographics of the worldwide church are probably the most significant change in the church is the last 100 years. Lamin Sanneh, a lay Catholic from Ghana who is professor at the Yale Divinity School has written some striking books about this. Here are some of the statistics he cites for Africa and China:
Africa
1900: 8.7mm Christians = 9% of 107.86mm. Majority of Christians were Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox. There were 34.5 mm Muslims = 32%
1962: 60mm Christians (23 mm Prot, 27mm Catholics, 10 mm Orthodox), 145mm Muslims.
In 1970, 120 mm. Christians
1985. By then pessimism about collapse of post independence states and waning confidence in church in Europe. Churches were only viable structures remaining and had to shoulder burden of societies' problems. Most Christians there are poor. 16,500 conversions a day = 6mm/year. By contrast, between 1970 and 1985, 4,300 people were leaving the church in Europe and America each day. In 2008, there were 100,000 converts to Catholicism in the US. Converts to Christianity in Africa came almost exclusively from societies whose people had preserved the indigenous name for God. Christian expansion accelerated after colonialism.
In 1998 330mm
In 2000: 350mm
In 2023 600mm Christians. Africa then would have more Christians than any other continent except South America.
China
o Official counts indicate that there are 7.5mm Catholics in mainline China. If one takes into account the underground churches, there are between 30 and 90mm Christians in the country. oChinese economic expansion is likely to bring it into conflict with Catholic Social Teaching, oThe loosening of family and community bonds and support has left students disenchanted, dislocated and stressed and depressed about their uncertain futures. The one-child per family policy has nurtured a culture of individualism.
o In the midst of such ferment, sympathy for religion seems to run deep, and so does official unease. oOfficial Chinese bureaucracy can't do much about unorganized Pentecostal Christianity, which is spreading very rapidly. By 2025, 90mm people may be involved in that movement.
Christianity will certainly grow in China. The question is what role it will play, if the following likely scenario occurs. In a few decades Christians will make up 20/30% of the Chinese population. It will have the largest group of Protestants of any country in the world. If Christians shape Chinese mentality, it will be marked by international responsibility, restraint, justice, stability and choice. Christianity then could give China a moral center, which it needs. Chinese expatriates will play an important role also.
Issues
I'm not sure what all the issues are with globalization, but they will be the result of the fact that today 2/3rds of the Catholics in the world live in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and that percentage is likely to rise. This will mean most popes and cardinals will probably come from those areas. As these peoples have a greater voice in the church, they will probably push Western Christians to think about economic and other disparities differently.
What were mission countries 25 years ago are now sending missionary clergy to the US and Europe. This is not just a Catholic phenomenon; several Anglican bishops in England are immigrants. How to adapt to this and make the most of it? Language and cultural differences; more traditional outlook of most of the missionaries coming to America.
Aging population in many Western countries means that church's ministry will need new emphases: ministry to the elderly and to immigrants who are once again a very significant part of the general population of the US and of the Catholic population especially.
Another issue is the extreme pressure on and fragility of most of the Christian populations in the Near East: Iraq, Palestine, Syria and even Egypt. Their demise would mean the loss of a very rich tradition. Perhaps the new places where Christianity is on the rise will eventually more than compensate.
2. ECUMENISM AND INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
There are about 2.2 billion Christians in the world and half of them are Catholics. There are 500 million Protestants 225 million Eastern Orthodox. There are 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.4 billion Hindus, and perhaps 300,000 million Buddhists, and 18 million Jews (5mm in Israel; 5mm in the US). The percentage of Pentecostals Christians has grown from 5% to 20% in last quarter century
HISTORY
World Council of Churches. Although not fully constituted until 1948, the predecessor bodies to the World Council of Church began to form already in 1910. Two of them, Faith and Order and Life and Work, are now divisions of the WCC. The organization defines itself as follows:
"The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one Eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity, as Jesus prayed for his followers, "so that the world may believe." (John 17:21)."
"The goal of the World Council of Churches is not to build a global 'super-church', nor to standardize styles of worship, but rather to deepen the fellowship of Christian churches and communities so they may see in one another authentic expressions of the 'one holy, catholic and apostolic church'."
The WCC members then profess that Christ is God and Savior and that Christians have a common calling to the glory of one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. WCC member churches today include nearly all the world's Orthodox churches, scores of denominations from such historic traditions of the Protestant Reformation as Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed, and a broad representation of united and independent churches. The Catholic Church is not a member, in part because it does it has had hesitations about what membership would signify, but also because it is so large that it might swamp the other churches and be resented by them. However, it works closely with the WWC and has representatives on all its committees.
In many ways, Vatican II was a kind of highpoint in the ecumenical movement. By then the Catholic Church was deeply involved in ecumenical dialog, and Protestant and Orthodox observers wee invited to the council and were listened to although they were not voting members. Vatican II issued short decrees On Ecumenism and On the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. These praised what had been achieved and were encouraging toward continued ecumenical effort
Dialogue occurs within the WCC, but there are also multi-lateral dialogues, and bi-lateral dialogues between the Catholic Church and another religious community. Two of the most important bi-lateral dialogues have been those with the Lutherans (an agreement was reached on Justification, which Luther said was the key issue) and substantial agree was attained with the Anglicans (ARCIC: Anglican Roman-Catholic International Commission) on the Eucharist (1971/79) and by 1981 some agreement was reached on ministry and authority. In subsequent phases progress was made on topics such as salvation, communion, and teaching authority. ARCIC has continued to dialogue, but the ordination of women and more especially the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, who was living in a homosexual relationship, have chilled its hopes. Some Anglican congregations want to join the Catholic Church, and Pope Benedict has offered them corporate membership in which they can keep many of their traditions-with a status analogous to that of one of Eastern Catholic Churches. This notion of corporate reunion has long been thought a viable road toward church unity, but because this involves only a small minority of Anglicans, it has been controversial.
Dialogue with between Roman Catholics and Jews seems to occur mainly in America. The question of whether the Pope did enough to save the Jews during WWII bedevils it. However, one result has been that Catholic theologians generally call into question the idea of supercessionism-that with the New Covenant with Christ the Older Covenant with the Jews was ended. One facet of dialog with Buddhists is inter-monastic retreats and discussions. For example, there have been three such dialogs at Gethsemane Abbey. The first was published as a book; the second is on line; and the third is supposed to come out anytime. I don't know anything about dialogue with Muslims, but I know there are efforts being made.
Issues
In late 2007, Cardinal Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, addressed the Pope and the Cardinals and soon-to-be cardinals on the topic of Ecumenism. He made five points: (1) Ecumenism is a Christian obligation, because Jesus willed that his church be one. Genuine ecumenism is a process of conversion and of commitment to the truth, not relativism. The most important outcome of ecumenism thus far is that we have rediscovered ourselves as brothers and sisters and sought unity together. Three fields, quite different: with Churches of the first millennium; with Reformation churches; and with the Pentecostal movement that is growing so rapidly. (2) Eastern Churches: (a) Christological agreements with patriarchs of the pre-Chalcedonian ("Oriental"=Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc.) churches achieved in 1980s. Now discussion of nature of the church. (b) Orthodox churches. We are very close to these and are in process of mutual reconciliation. New problems after end of Soviet Empire, because the Eastern Catholic Churches were legal again and seen as a threat by the Orthodox ("Uniatism", a problem especially acute in the Ukraine, where Latin Catholics, Eastern Catholics and Orthodox all need to coexist). Russian Orthodox unhappy when four Roman Catholic dioceses established in Russia in 2002. But dialogue has been restarted and primacy of the Bishop of Rome is being discussed. (3) Agreement on justification; collaboration in humanitarian sphere. Growing confidence and desire for unity. But big transformation is occurring: (a) Eucharistic communion, which for Catholics presupposes ecclesial communion, but does not for others; also families of mixed faith; (b) new problems in ethical sphere, where we are less able to give common witness and the Protestant churches are experiencing grave internal conflicts; (c) resurgence of liberal theology among Protestants, which tend to dilute some key doctrinal bases of agreement; sometimes in seems our common "patrimony has begun to melt away here and there like the glaciers in the Alps." (d) Splintering of Christian groups in places like Africa. (e) Positive developments: (i) growth of evangelical groups whose Christology and ethics agree with ours, though they have very different ecclesiologies, sacramental theology, Biblical exegesis and understanding of tradition. (ii) High Church Anglican and Lutherans who are close to Catholics of many questions. (iii) Growth of monasticism in Protestant groups. (iv) Groups like Taize and Bose, where grass roots ecumenism occurs. Thus new and promising forms of dialogue are emerging alongside the official ones that have often become difficult. (4) 400 million Pentecostals worldwide, growing. Little organization, so hard to dialogue. Some very aggressive in their missionary methods. We need to ask ourselves why they are growing and drawing people from our church. How can we respond? (5) How to travel the path of ecumenism in immediate future? (a) We must begin from the common patrimony of faith and remain faithful to that which, with the help of God, we have been able to accomplish ecumenically. As far as possible we must bear common witness to this faith in a world that is increasingly secularized. (b) On this basis, dialogue in a clear but non-polemical way regarding what separates us. (c) Need ecumenism of prayer and conversion. "Without a true spirituality of communion, which gives room to the other without the renunciation of our own identity, all of our projects would become arid and empty activism."
3. CHURCH AND WORLD
History
Church and State. In the New Testament, there are different takes on the relationship of the church to the world. These reflect different situations and different emphases. When Paul urges Christians not to appear as subversives or libertines, but act as good citizens, he is primarily concerned about giving the right impression. When the Book of Revelation fiercely attacks the Roman Empire, it may be because the author experienced it as a persecutor. When 1 Peter says Christians are strangers in the world, whose true homeland is elsewhere, the author reminds his readers to keep before their eyes the big picture, which includes a temporal existence on earth and eternal life in heaven.
Many people today would say that the close intertwining of church and state stemming from Constantine's support of the church was a big mistake, which had bad effects on both. However, during the Enlightenment (17-18th centuries), when people who opposed the monarchies and promoted democratic causes were usually anti-clerical, it was hard for believers to see how secularization of politics, education and health care, and other dimensions of human life, could be beneficial
The French Revolution and its aftermath presented Christians with the stark choice: accept a secularized and often-anti Christian political order and try to change it from within, or withdraw from active involvement, or pine for the Christendom of the past. E.g., when Rome was conquered in 1870 and made part of Papal States, the popes withdrew into the Vatican. Finally, in 1929, pope recognized Italy and Italy recognized the independence of Vatican City State.
At Vatican II, the Church tried to affirm all that was good in modern society and indicate its openness to dialogue and development. Its pastoral constitution, The Church and the Modern World, affirmed advances in science and technology, the recognition of political and religious freedom (there was separate Vatican II document on this, largely due to the work of the American Jesuit, John Courtney Murray). Generally speaking the document kept to a mediating position, there are many good things in modernity, but they also have their dangers.
Today, people in general are less optimistic about modernity than they were in the 1960s. To them modernity seems to have brought us to a number of impasses: environmental-we are living in a way that is going to have bad effects on future generations; economic-we have become accustomed to a debt-ridden lifestyle that seems unsustainable, and in America particularly to a polarization about the role of government; individualism has come to the point that communities at all levels are threatened; the foundations of human rights are being undercut; technology is running ahead of common sense and morality; empirical reason and logic don't seem to be enough to guide human life.
H. Richard Niebuhr, an American Lutheran theologian wrote books on the theme of Christ and Culture in which he analyzed different ways in which the Christian church can relate to culture: as its spiritual arm; as its critic; in dialectical tension (yes, but); as leaven from within. This last way has generally been the predominant Catholic outlook.
Issues
We will have to think about how the church interfaces with NGOs and multinational corporations; how it is to develop its social teaching (both as a body of doctrine and as an activity) in the new globalized world, and to a world in which environmental issues are becoming very serious? What is the role of Catholic charitable activities the welfare state?
We will need to think about how we can influence society. It seems like we mainly are trying to do it through lobbying and public policy statements from the bishops. How can the laity be mobilized to be leaven-their primary apostolate?
Is anti-Catholicism a problem and if so what can we do about it?
Dorothy Day would probably fit most easily into the Christ against culture model, even though she much admired St. Thomas' theology. Her standpoint was that of the unemployed street people of the depression era, and of an absolute respect for life and detestation of war, which made her a pacifist even during WWII. Perhaps standing at the side of the poor gives a very different perspective than if one looks at things from the suburbs or the university.
Vatican II coincided with the end of the Catholic ghetto. Catholics achieved economic and educational parity and moved to the suburbs and the professions. In many ways they assimilated: considering all baptized Catholics (of whom a minority are regular in the practice of their faith [when polled some 40% of people in US say they went to church the previous week; the actual number may be under 30%]) there are no strong differences between Catholics and the rest of Americans on abortion, at least according to many sociological studies. Divorce is about as high among people identifying themselves as Catholics as among the general population. Artificial contraception is almost as widely accepted among Catholics as among Protestants. In some ways, this shows that cultural mores, especially in a society drenched with secular media, have enormous impact. Can we do anything to change that?
PART FOUR: ETHICAL ISSUES
1. CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING; SOCIAL OR STRUCTURAL SIN
Social Teaching. Beginning with Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerun novarum (1891), which drew on some pioneering work by nineteenth-century Catholic thinkers, the papacy has spearheaded the development of what is called modern Catholic Social Teaching, which tries to apply the teaching of the gospel, natural law, and the Catholic moral tradition, to the social, political and ethical issues of our time. There have been several dozen subsequent social justice encyclicals, and there is now a recognized but constantly evolving body of Catholic social teaching. The church doesn't aim to tell the secular spheres what to do or give solutions, but it does highlight relevant ethical standards and Christian teachings; e.g., special concern for the poor.
One concept that emerges from considering social justice from the standpoint of Christian faith is the idea of social or structural sin: not just individual attitudes, choices and actions are sinful; there can also be sinful structures embedded in law and cultural mores (e.g., the Mafia culture, or the culture of fraternity houses at some colleges, or the consumerist values of our society). Christians have a duty to try to change these, because like the devil, these cultural influences and institutional forms lead people into sin and deprive people of their dignity.
Much more could be said on this, but perhaps this familiar, seven-point, summary prepared by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will give an idea of the content of Catholic Social Teaching will do for this context:
Life and Dignity of the Human Person
The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death penalty. The intentional targeting of civilians in war or terrorist attacks is always wrong. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.
Call to Family, Community, and Participation
The person is not only sacred but also social. How we organize our society-in economics and politics, in law and policy-directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. Marriage and the family are the central social institutions that must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.
Rights and Responsibilities
The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities--to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.
Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.
The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God's creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.
Solidarity
We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that "if you want peace, work for justice."1 The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict.
Care for God's Creation
We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God's creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.
2.MARRIAGE, SEXUALITY AND MEDICAL ETHICS
One hundred years ago almost all Christian churches in the United States and Europe would have rejected as immoral all forms of artificial contraception, divorce, cohabiting of unmarried couples, homosexual sex, and sex outside of marriage generally. The changes that have come about are sweeping. The causes are multiple: a general acceptance of technological solutions to human problems, Freudian and other psychological theories about sexuality, the women's movement, improvements in infant survival rates, the shift from rural life where children were an economic asset and space was not such a priority, an emphasis on personal fulfillment, a reaction to what was considered prudery, hypocrisy and repression of sexuality, a dissolving of the double standard not by encouraging men to be more chaste but by freeing women from expectations of chastity, a loss of transcendence and a disinclination to defer gratification, a growing emphasis on the need of sexual pleasure for human well-being.
One can trace the stages of this revolutionary change in the Lambeth Congresses, meetings of various churches associated with the Church of England, whose primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury calls them, but who has know authority over the independent national, "Anglican" or "Episcopalian" churches stemming from the Church of England.
The 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion allowed for contraception in limited circumstances. In a partial reaction, Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Casti connubii (On Christian Marriage) in 1930, reaffirming the Catholic Church's belief in various traditional Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality, including the prohibition of artificial birth control even within marriage. Casti Connubii was supportive of natural family planning.
One can trace the evolution of Protestant thinking through the decisions of subsequent Lambeth Conferences. One landmark moment was the 1958 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Church that called for respect for the "consciences" of married couples who use birth control. Another Landmark was the 1998 Lambeth Conference debated homosexuality: a vote of 526-70 passed a resolution calling for a listening process, but a section passed by a smaller majority said that homosexual practice is "incompatible" with scripture. At the 2008 Conference In 2008, four Anglican primates announced that they intended to boycott the Lambeth conference because of their opposition to the actions of the Episcopal Church in America (the American branch of the Anglican church) allowing homosexual clergy and same-sex unions. The Episcopal Church in America is more liberal on sexual issues than Anglicans generally (its decisions are made by an assembly in which lay people have a big voice); a large percentage of Anglicans are in Africa, and among them there is little acceptance of homosexual behavior.
The most significant event in the Catholic Church regarding sexuality occurred in 1968. The Vatican Council dealt with marriage and sexuality in general terms in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, but left consideration of birth control to the pope. The issue was of renewed interest because of the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960. The pope appointed an international committee of theologians, clergy, physicians and laity. It came to number 72 members. They presented the pope with two reports: the majority report recommended modifying the church's opposition to artificial contraception, the minority report argued that the teaching against artificial contraception should not be changed. Pope Paul VI accepted the position of the minority report in his encyclical Humanae vitae (1968).
Issues of Sexuality and Marriage
The issues that emerge from all this are many and complex. Many of you have watched the Theology of the Body presentations by Christopher West. In it he gives a coherent and uncompromising presentation of Catholic teaching as that was expressed by Pope John-Paul II, who worked out a very positive understanding of human sexuality and its place within marriage.
The key issue concerns the very nature of marriage: is the traditional view of the church-as expounded for example in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in need of alteration? The tenor of recent secular debate regarding gay marriage is that marriage is a malleable human construct that can be redefined in various directions. The key question seems to be: how should sexual activity, procreation and rearing of children, commitment and fidelity, and gender be related? Is sacramental marriage something different from secular marriage? How much should the church care about the legal definition of marriage and how should it contribute to the public debate?
Birth regulation. The Catholic Church does not promote having as many children as possible. Rather, it promotes responsible parenthood, both in conceiving and raising children. In the background, but seldom addressed in church documents, is the question of world population. There are several versions of Natural Family Planning (the "rhythm method" it used to be called) that plan and limit births by confining sexual intercourse to the woman's infertile periods, which are determined by several methods. Not every couple can make NFP work because of various medical reasons, but many people are very happy with it. It requires self-discipline and communication that they find helps their marriage.
The Gospels are pretty clear that Jesus rejected divorce and remarriage after divorce. That presents the church with a dilemma in a society where one-half of the marriages end in divorce. The dilemma becomes most wrenching when one of the parties, through little or no fault of their own, is abandoned by the other spouse whom then marries someone else. The church's effort to help such people, and those who jointly ended their marital relationship, is to see if an annulment is possible-was there anything in the first marriage that would make it not a valid, sacramental marriage. The process can be healing or it can be slow and frustrating and sometimes inconclusive. Pope Benedict XVI addressed this in a recent talk. Some theologians, I think Cardinal Walter Kasper is one, have suggested that maybe the church should say, yes, divorce is wrong, but if someone is divorced and in new marriage, maybe they should have the possibility of absolution from their earlier fault and a blessing for the marriage they are now in.
Homosexuality has been much debated of late. The liberal position is that it is an innate inclination (and they seem to be right on that), and therefore natural (which doesn't necessarily follow) and therefore rightfully exercised or indulged. Put it the argument another way: The homosexual is born with a sexual attraction to members of his or her own sex, and so he or she has the same right as a heterosexual person to sexual intimacy, pleasure, financial rights accruing to spouses, the right of adoption and so forth. (Notice how often the word "right" occurs these discussions.) The church's response is that innate is not the same as natural, and intimacy is attainable without genital activity. In England, the church has had to shut down its adoption agencies, because the state insists that children must be given for adoption to homosexual couples. Quite apart from the moral question, homosexuals have the same rights to happiness and respect as everyone else and the church needs to minister to them. That is not always easy, because the dominant view among homosexual activists is that the church's moral teaching is wrong and discriminatory.
Premarital sexual activity and cohabitation have become very common in the last decades, and they are now becoming culturally accepted or at least expected behavior. The same might be said of masturbation. None of these is considered morally good by the Catholic Church, because of its central teaching that genital activity belongs in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship open to the procreation and rearing of children.
Medical Issues
Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago spoke of a seamless doctrine of the sacredness of human life from conception to death. The deliberate taking of another human life except in cases of deadly aggression is murder. Hence, abortion and euthanasia are wrong. There are not many arguments regarding this moral doctrine among Catholics, though the rate of abortions among people who call themselves Catholics is alarmingly high. Some, though, would question whether the law of the land needs to mirror this moral teaching, which half the citizens or so don't accept. Such arguments have to do with the function of law, especially its educative role. Some would argue a human being is not present until sometime after conception, but this is not a particular easy position to defend. A more position is that a human being only exists when there is personal consciousness and/or the possibility of growing to it-which leads some people-not Catholics as far as I know-to advocate infanticide of badly deformed infants or senile elderly.
Other newly developing medical issues. These issues don't have much of a history, and of all the things in this survey they are the ones I am least acquainted with. For theological rationales and some applications see the document of the International Theological Commission: "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" (ca. 2003).
Fertility. In a general way, one can say that the church regards as morally wrong in vitro fertilization and other ways of bringing about new human life apart from the context of marital love expressed in sexual intercourse. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when a third party's sperm or ovum or surrogate uterus is used that is gravely immoral. Artificial insemination not involving a third party is, the CCC says, perhaps less reprehensible but still morally unacceptable. Such techniques dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. "Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the human person." On the other hand, the CCC encourages research aimed at reducing human sterility. A child is a gift not a right (CCC 2373-2379).
Stem Cell Research. There is no problem with stem cell research as such. In a document issued by American Bishops: "There is no moral objection to research and therapy of this kind, when it involves no harm to human beings at any stage of development and is conducted with appropriate informed consent," However, to kill or "harvest" human embryos is gravely immoral and seemingly unnecessary. The insistence on using embryonic stem cells seems to be more ideological than anything else; there are other ways to obtain stem cells.
The American bishops made a very good point in a document they issued on the subject is to refute the argument that an embryo is too undeveloped to have human rights:
If fundamental rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong.
Cloning: A statement made by Bishop Gregory when the Congress was debating a bill to ban human cloning, a bill that I think was passed: "The Catholic Church encourages efforts to find new ways to reduce human suffering and treat life-threatening illness. However, human cloning violates fundamental ethical and moral norms, and is to be condemned unequivocally. Human cloning does not treat any disease but turns human reproduction into a manufacturing process, by which human beings are mass-produced to preset specifications. The cloning procedure is so dehumanizing that some scientists want to treat the resulting human beings as subhuman, creating them solely so they can destroy them for their cells and tissues." (Cf. Communion and Stewardship, #89)
Genetic modification of human beings. The statements I read are very cautious; there are different degrees of modification and therapy involved, but one that introduces modifications that will be passed down from generation to generation are liable to have some very bad unforeseen consequences.
Conclusion: Doing THEOLOGY
Everything we have discussed so far concerns theology, but we might end by noting a couple of things about theology itself.
History
Catholic theology seems not to have been very creative or vibrant in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It tended to be defensive and to meet critics on their own ground (e.g., "natural theology"). In the early 19th century there was a revival in German Catholic theology (especially at the University of Tübingen) inspired in part by ideas derived from Romanticism. In the last half of the 19th century there was big revival of interest in the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Pope Leo XIII endorsed this in an encyclical (Aeterni Patris, 1879). Thereafter, for 75 years or so, most Catholic theology was done with reference to St. Thomas' theology and perhaps more importantly, his philosophy. His philosophy was developed in dialogue with the works of Aristotle, which came into the Latin West during Aquinas' lifetime. Aristotle's emphasis on the close connection between body and soul, sensation and rational knowledge fit well with Catholic emphasis on sacramentality and the Incarnation. However, Aristotle did not think there was God that was either personal or the Creator, and his understanding of the soul was inadequate. So St. Thomas had to work out a whole new philosophy meshing some of Aristotle's ideas with the Christian Platonism of St. Augustine and Boethius. That stream of philosophy is referred to as the philosophia perennis, and St. Thomas enriched it immensely.
As philosophers and historians studied St. Thomas' works and ideas, they were led to study his sources. There was a great flowering of research into earlier writers-Augustine and the other Fathers of the Church. Meanwhile, there was also a big biblical revival, as we saw earlier. All of which gradually undercut the focus on St. Thomas alone. This was not all bad, because St. Thomas' philosophy and theology had their limitations (e.g., in relation to history and science). However, it meant, that from Vatican II on, Catholic theology has been very pluralistic and eclectic, using various philosophies or none at all.
Issues
One issue facing Catholic theology is precisely the place of philosophy. How important is philosophy today? How important is it for theology? If by philosophy one means the effort to use human reason to deal with the basic questions of human existence, knowledge, and destiny, and the nature of reality itself, then it would seem to be very important. In fact, most of us have taken positions on these basic questions, sometimes almost without being aware of it. One would think that it is important to think them through explicitly and systematically. How exactly should philosophy and faith interacting in theological reflection?
Scientists today are making incredible discoveries. But there are many questions which science cannot answer: e.g., how far should we use those discoveries to alter plants, animals and humans by genetic modification? What is the nature of truth? How do discoveries in science correlate with our beliefs about creation and human nature? For such questions we need believers who are scientists but who can also think deeply in philosophical and theological matters.
In the United States, theology has been eliminated from most university settings. Some schools have added departments of religion, which study religion(s) from neutral standpoints of history, sociology, anthropology or philosophy. Theology, on the other hand, considers religious tradition from the inside, from the standpoint of faith. In Catholic colleges theology is often taught from a fairly neutral position, sometimes by professors whose faith commitment is limited and to students many of whom are not Catholic or marginally Catholic. This presents some dilemmas about academic freedom, the role of a Catholic university, and the proper setting for theology, which needs to be a work of faith but also needs dialogue with other disciplines.
Another question is what is the place of Christ is theology and in human history? If Christ is who we believe he is, what is the place of other world religions? In theology Christ will obviously be central, but how is that centrality to be expressed? Who is exactly is Christ-how can we imagine him, or how do the data of the New Testament coalesce to give a rounded picture of Christ?
We are the salt of the earth. We give flavor to the life on this planet We are the light of the world. We make bright a world that tends toward dullness and darkness. That’s what this Sunday’s Gospel reading tells us. Someone was saying the other day that while many religions call us to have faith in God, Christianity is unique in that it is a religion that believes God also has faith in us. Sometimes I don’t feel much like the salt of the earth or the light of the world, but God has put me in this place and in this time and has confidence that I can do the job I am called to do. That is true for you as well. We can make a big difference in our world. God wouldn’t call us to do something that we are incapable of. (After all, who knows our capabilities better than God?)