Viewpoint
Consensus from dialogue, not silence
By MICHELE DILLON
The good thing about these months of
turmoil in the Catholic church is that the anger and dismay over priests’
and bishops’ abuse of power are motivating Catholics to take seriously
their responsibility to be, in the words of Vatican II, the “authors and
the artisans” of their Catholic identity. It is easy to invoke the mantra
of the church as the people of God, it is quite a bit more demanding to take
this charge seriously.
I am thankful we have taken the first steps in this unceasing
journey. Catholics have started talking to one another about what it means to
be Catholic. The conversations are happening in all sorts of places -- at
Little League games, at Starbucks, at dinner parties and even on occasion over
donuts in parish halls. The conversation found its most public forum at the
recent convention of the Voice of the Faithful in Boston.
The conversations, of course, are not always pleasant and
comforting. Sometimes people express opinions and suggest possibilities for
reform that others find objectionable. The correct response to this, I think,
is not to shun debate and discussion, not to dampen a diversity of views but to
seek out a broad range of informed opinion. Groups such as Voice of the
Faithful, for good strategic reasons, want to be centrist, to avoid the
ideological polarization that is now so commonplace in American public culture.
But to be “centrist” does not mean that one should not critically
appraise the doctrines of the right and of the left and of the center
itself.
The culture of silence explicitly imposed by the Vatican over the
last several years and its prohibition of public discussion of theological
ideas necessarily exerts a chilling effect on dialogue about a whole host of
Catholic doctrinal and structural questions (not that the two can, in practice,
be dissociated). This is a great pity. To be human is to be communicative, to
necessarily engage in mutual exchange with others of thoughts, ideas and
aspirations. One of the great contributions of Vatican II was to affirm the
essential communicative dimension of persons joined together in continuing
dialogue. Vatican II was not an aberrant moment in the church’s history.
Its documents represent the profound collective voice of the bishops of the
church called together by Pope John XXIII and sent home with the blessing and
commendation of Pope Paul VI. We have to take its deliberations seriously.
Vatican II was, as Paul VI averred, “a unique moment, a moment of
incomparable significance and riches.”
One of the many riches it conferred on Catholics was the
obligation to participate in the dialogical work of the church, including the
obligation to offer “solutions” or ideas that might help ameliorate
the defects and contradictions within the church itself. Vatican II recognized
that this would not be a seamless or tidy process but would entail frequent and
legitimate disagreements among sincere Catholics. What a gift! What trust these
bishops showed in the Catholic laity!
Communication is not about achieving consensus for the sake of
consensus; a consensus built on a spiral of silence, whether in politics,
finance or the church, can often be a mask obfuscating our collusion in immoral
practices. But a consensus forged out of an open and honest dialogue in which
participants attentively listen to and argue with each other will be a robust
consensus for action allowing Catholic laity and hierarchy alike to move
forward, repair, remodel and refurbish the church they treasure. The church
hierarchy’s fear of “dissent” and Voice of the Faithful’s
concern that it not be portrayed as a “dissenting” Catholic
organization both betray an unfortunate misunderstanding of the importance of
dialogue to human community, and of the vibrancy that can emerge when people
encounter new ideas. Challenges to the status quo do not necessarily rupture a
cultural or religious tradition; they may instead offer new ways of thinking
about and implementing the tradition’s core ideals, and in so doing
strengthen and revitalize it.
Trying to silence or avoid those with whom we might disagree also
betrays the trust endowed by Vatican II and more fundamentally inscribed in
scriptural accounts of Christ encouraging us to cast our nets widely. We can
enrich our church and our Catholicism if we are brave enough to resist imposing
closure where closure does not exist and when in fact it is not necessary.
Community thrives on and is always carved out of diversity, including a
diversity of informed opinions.
Michele Dillon teaches at the University of New
Hampshire.
National Catholic Reporter, October 18,
2002
|
