EDITORIAL As chorus of change grows, who is
listening?
Archbishop John Quinn's recent talk at Oxford got
us wondering about how things go inside the Vatican.
Quinn, in a stunningly bold speech marking the centennial of
Campion Hall, a residence for Jesuits studying at Oxford, called for sweeping
reform of the papacy and the way authority is wielded in the church (NCR, July
12). He was sharply critical of the curia for exercising power far in excess of
its original job description and for becoming an obstruction to communication
between the bishops of the world and the papacy.
Quinn was eloquent, academically precise and painstakingly
deferential toward the pope and the magisterium. All the same, having taken on
the task of discussing "new forms in which the Petrine ministry can be embodied
and exercised" -- as the pope had requested in a 1995 encyclical, Ut Unum Sint
-- it turns out there are things to be said.
If the pope asks for a critique and suggestions on what new forms
might be appropriate, it can only mean the old forms must be wanting.
But who listens? What happens when an archbishop, who has given a
lifetime of service to the church, undertakes a serious discourse on what has
gone wrong with the exercise of papal authority and turns the spotlight on the
stifling interference of the curia?
Quinn, in one sense, is but the latest in a mounting list of
church leaders and high-profile theologians who have felt compelled to push for
meaningful change.
Cardinal Carlo Martini of Milan, Italy, in interviews the past
two years, has advocated married priests, allowing communion for some divorced
Catholics, studying the possibilities of ordaining women as deacons, and taking
a case-by-case approach to the question of artificial contraception.
A group of American bishops last year fashioned an abbreviated
version of the concerns voiced by Quinn. They urged a "more effective structure
for dialogue with Rome," as well as steps "to be sure that we hear what the
people have to say to us." The bishops must be free, they said, to openly
discuss difficult issues such as equality of women in the church, the annulment
process, contraception, what types of men are being attracted to the priesthood
and the ordination of married men.
"There is a widespread feeling," the bishops wrote, "that Roman
documents of varying authority have for some years been systematically
reinterpreting the Vatican II documents to present the minority positions at
the council as the true meaning of the council."
Archbishop Quinn, Cardinal Martini, a group of 12 U.S. bishops
supported by more than 30 others -- these are not wild-eyed revolutionaries.
Nor are they alone in their thinking. The same questions -- particularly the
wonderment at why Rome is so fearful of dialogue among the bishops of the
church -- resound strongly through many, if not all, national conferences.
The church is not a democracy, and numbers alone do not make a
persuasive moral argument. At the same time, there is little wisdom in simply
ignoring the growing chorus -- one that includes millions of Catholics around
the world who have signed petitions -- urging church reform.
In this week's issue (page 9), theologian Bernard Cooke points
out one of the central difficulties in attempting to move beyond these isolated
monologues to some form of discussion.
"One of the things we most need for productive conversation,"
writes Cooke, "is a structure of open public discussion of fundamental issues.
There is plenty of discussion on both sides, but there are few opportunities
for nonpolemical exchange."
Instead of any substantial discussion, a sad pattern has emerged
of either silence or punishment by the Vatican.
Those who raise serious questions and present well-formed
arguments are often met with insinuations that they are less than faithful to
the church and maybe even less than Catholic.
What should be discussion becomes polarized into shouting
matches.
And in the absence of any real dialogue, bullying tactics are
used to maintain order. Theologians are silenced or banished from their
teaching positions; established catechists are blacklisted or fired; reform
groups like Call to Action are denied meeting space or branded as heretical.
The resulting chill on intellectual endeavors, if history is any
guide, will become a matter of regret at some later stage of church
history.
For we all know that the questions will not disappear. They did
not go away in the earlier part of this century when theologians all had to run
for cover as the antimodernists cast a huge net over the major centers of
thought in this country.
The tragedy, of course, is that so many good people find their
lives unnecessarily disrupted and their reputations ruined.
The further tragedy, glaringly evident earlier this year in the
antics of Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., is that every bullying use
of power diminishes the church's authority and its credibility.
Bruskewitz made his point but in so doing demonstrated the kind
of church that results when the authoritarian model is taken to its logical
extremes: exclusive, punitive and discordant.
"God expects us to grow up," Cooke writes. "We are meant to be
decisive and self-determining. ... We cannot be blessed by God for handing over
to others in blind submission those choices that are demanded by the
circumstances of our lives."
Freedom does not mean license but neither can it exist in
lockstep, unthinking adherence to rules. If we are to be good Catholics who
grow in grace and closer union with Christ, then we must be free to discuss and
even argue, within the church, those issues that are deeply important to us as
people of God.
Voices like Quinn's and Martini's and the concerned U.S. bishops
and a significant number of their brother bishops in other countries continue
to make a compelling case for increased dialogue, for rethinking the way
authority operates in the church, for a new council to usher in the next
millennium, for increased involvement of the laity, especially women, in
deciding the future course of the church.
Is anyone in the Vatican listening?
National Catholic Reporter, August 9, 1996
|