Address given
at the International Federation of Married Catholic Priests held July 28-Aug.
1, 1999 A
REFORMING CHURCH WITH AN UNREFORMED LEADERSHIP
Fr. Paul Collins
I. A CHANGING CATHOLIC COMMUNITY
I have a doctor friend in his mid-fifties who said recently:
"We've all changed, but the church has hardly changed at all". The 'we' he was
referring to were the laity and many of the priests of his generation, the
people who grew up in the pre Vatican II church and who have been through the
massive changes of the last three decades. By 'church' he meant the clerical
hierarchy. My friend's assessment is right: most older Catholics are changing
or have changed by opting for pluralism. The priorities of their belief,
spirituality and ethics are very different to what they were in the 1960's. As
John Wilkins, editor of the London Catholic weekly, The Tablet says: "They have
re- negotiated the terms of their membership (of the church)".' Younger
Catholics have taken an even more radical approach: for them change and
pluralism is a given and the post-modern culture in which they are educated has
assured them that there are no absolutes and that truth is relative.
In my 1986 book Mixed Blessings I used the biological word
'mutation' to describe what had happened since the end of Vatican II in 1965.
The word refers literally to genetic change and it conveys a sense "of both
dramatic transformation and continuity ... The evolution of a new reality is
deeply rooted in and is the result of all that has gone before".
'While the change can be sudden and dramatic, there is also
genuine continuity. One thing is certain: there is no going back.
There have been at least four previous mutations in the history of
the church. The first occurred in New Testament and sub-apostolic times when
Christianity emerged from its Jewish matrix to confront the wider culture of
the Roman world. The second was in the early fourth century the church moved
from being a persecuted sect to the favored and eventually official religion of
the late Roman Empire The third was at the beginning of the second millennium
when a reformed model of church government emerged that was increasingly
papocentric and hierarchical. Finally, the sixteenth century Counter
Reformation saw the emergence of a more highly controlled church in response to
Protestantism. To enforce this the papacy adopted an 'absolutist' model from
contemporary political culture.' Catholicism today is undergoing the fifth, and
probably most radical mutation in church history.
In the face of this many traditionalists have retreated into an
attempt to restore the Catholicism of the past. There is a feeling abroad, even
in the Vatican itself, that the only solution for the church is to withdraw to
a kind of sectarian ghetto,. maintaining a surviving remnant of 'true
believers.' Some maintain the church has to become smaller in order to remain
faithful. This draws upon a tradition within Catholicism that is based on a
sense of the church as a source of absolute truth that acts as a kind of
perimeter for believers. There is freedom within its boundaries, but outside of
it is the dangerous relativity of the 'world' in our case post-modern
secularism, or various forms of totalitarianism. It is the role of the church
to stand against these prevailing social trends.
The theologians who think along these lines - the most important
are Hans Urs von Balthazar and Josef Ratzinger - generally take an anti modern
approach and want to return to the sources, to the great thinkers of the past.
They reject sectarianism, but see little to attract them in the modern world,
and are sure it has nothing to teach the church.
However, this anti modern response does not really accord with the
mainstream Catholic tradition. Catholicism has always resisted sectarianism and
has maintained a sense of living in interaction with the cultural context in
which it finds itself. In terms of the ugly neologism, it has always been an
'uncultured' faith. Anti modernism is also an unimaginative response.
What the contemporary church must learn to do is to live
critically with pluralism, while resisting the post-modernist fascination with
relativism. Many Catholics are already engaged in the process of learning this
art. It consists in a respectful tolerance of a whole range of views within the
context of a democratic polity, while maintaining an organic commitment to
Catholic belief and its living and developing view of life. This expresses
itself through Catholics participating in social processes, discerning and
supporting what is best, and offering a critique of those social norms that are
contrary to human and Christian values. This approach requires humility,
knowledge of the biblical and church tradition and history, and a quiet
confidence that the Spirit is able to sustain the church in all social
circumstances. Most mainstream Catholics who have been born and brought up in
Western democracies simply do this instinctively. The paradigmatic document of
Vatican II for such an attitude is Gaudium et Spes the Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World.
In contrast, many of those who come to adult maturity under
dictatorial or absolutist regimes often unconsciously mimic their contexts:
their view of religion and faith is similarly uncompromising and absolutist.
While much in their stance is admirable, their approach is not as normative as
they often assume. Catholics in liberal democracies have mare complex minuets
to perform: respecting and tolerating other views while maintaining commitment
to Christian faith and the critique it offers to society.
What is happening in contemporary Catholicism is that those who
have learned to live with plurality and ambiguity are frustrated by a church
leadership that is afraid of this process and unwilling to engage in it. They
often feel that the doctrinal and theological justifications used for
maintaining or restoring the old authoritarian Catholicism are specious and
that what they are really dealing with is a determination to maintain clerical
power. In my view they are right, and in fact point to one of the essential
fault lines that runs through contemporary Catholicism. While the model of
church out of which most Catholics operate is communal and consultative, there
has been a complete failure to develop structures that embody the new vision of
church articulated at Vatican II. What we are essentially dealing with here is
the disjunction between a reforming laity and an essentially unreformed
hierarchy. Sitting at the core of this fault line is the question of power.
II. THE PROBLEM OF CLERICAL POWER
It is striking how often images of illness, sickness and decay
recur in the poetic imagery of Shakespeare's Hamlet. As the guard Bernardo
succinctly puts it: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" (I, IV, 90) .
Although he does not know any of the details of the political machinations at
the highest level of the kingdom, Bernardo's comment sums up the pervasive
canker at the core of the Danish body politic that corrupts everything it
touches. This sense of corruption is re-enforced by recurring poetic images in
the play that allude to disease, contagion and infection. There are references
to 'leprous distilment', sickness, age and impotence,, 'contagious blastments'
and to the sun breeding maggots in a dead body. The world is said to be a 'foul
and pestilent congregation of vapours'. At the corrupt core of it all is King
Claudius' murder of his brother, Hamlet senior. As the king himself says:
O! my offence is rank, it smells to heaven; It hath
the primal eldest curse upon't; A brother's murder! (III, 111,
36-38).
The crime of regicide is compounded by Queen Gertrude's incestuous
marriage to her brother in law. Shakespeare's notion is that the cankerous
corruption that permeates the state is the fruit of high crime of regicide,
incest and Claudius' pursuit of absolute power. A similar theme runs through
his other great tragedies of the corruption of right order and royal authority
gone astray, Macbeth and King Lear.
In the sixteenth century the theory was that a corrupt monarch's
deeds could permeate the entire political structure, especially when the right
order of society had been subverted by the murder of the legitimate king.
The nearest parallel that we have today to the absolute
monarchical state is the papacy. Absolute monarchy was the model used at
Vatican Council I (1869-1870) and it remains current in Rome today. It was
first fully articulated in the heyday of absolutism in the seventeenth century
by the Jesuit cardinal, Saint Robert Bellermine. Because pope and hierarchy
still operate on the basis of this absolutist model, I think that Shakespearean
imagery can be usefully applied to contemporary Catholicism. What I am arguing
here is that the corruption of power in an absolutist structure eventually
seeps down to permeate the entire body politic. Clearly, I am not suggesting
that the papacy is guilty of regicide, although Gertrude's incestuous marriage
has vague resonances with the modern epidemic of clerical sexual abuse.
It is the absolutist model of untrammeled power out of which the
modern papacy operates that I maintain is the core structural problem facing
the church. And because this overweening power infects the whole ecclesiastical
structure, things will not change with a new pope or different cardinals, as
many people hope. They say 'If only Cardinal Martini or someone like John XXIII
were elected pope, everything will be all right. No, it won It. For the
corruption of power is not so much about the culpability of particular persons,
as it is about the fact that the structure as presently constituted,
centralizes all power in the hands of the pope and the Roman curia. It is
simply no longer working as a form of service on behalf of the church; like all
absolutist structures, it has become obsessed with itself and the maintenance
of its own control, and that obsession with power is intrinsically
corrupting.
In 1988 Matthew Fox caused a ruckus when he compared the church to
a maladjusted, addictive, dysfunctional family led by an authoritarian and
psychologically disturbed hierarchy. He described the Vatican as a fascist,
self-deluded organization that projected its problems outward onto others, with
whom it never dealt directly.' Fox's reference to dysfunctionality chimed in
well with the modern emphasis on psychological and social analysis. However, my
preference is for a critique more in keeping with the Shakespearean structural
approach. The psychological approach suggests it is primarily individuals that
need to change. But people operate
Many in the Vatican object to the word 'power' when speaking of
church government. They increasingly prefer to use the term 'authority. 'This
gives a kind of rhetorical legitimacy to them In English the 'power' coercive
dominance and command; a person with institutional power can achieve what they
want by force, despite opposition. The word 'authority' has a less coercive
feel to it; it suggests a kind of moral or legal legitimacy with the right to
give a final decision. For instance, on the ABC's Lateline (Tuesday 9 June,
19981, discussing my book Papal Power, Cardinal Edward Cassidy said that my use
of the word I power I had given of fence in Rome, and that he much preferred
the word 'authority'. He argued that 'power, was an inappropriate word to
describe the way pope and curia operated, despite objections from my
fellow-panelist, Morris West and myself, about the constant use of the term
'sacra potestas' to describe the pontifical exercise of coercive power in the
church for most of this millennium.
This rhetorical shift is a kind of unconscious cover-up of the
reality of church life. In the past churchmen were less ashamed of real power.
The First Vatican Council is completely unequivocal when describing papal
power:
If anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of
supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction
over the whole church ... or that he only has the principal part, but not the
absolute fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not
ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and
each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
So no matter what euphemisms may be used, the question of power
and its exercise is a fundamental one in Catholicism.
As Lord John Acton's (1834-1902) famous aphorism pointed out in an
1887 letter to the Bishop of London, Mandell Creighton: 'Power tends to
corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' 6 Acton was a liberal
Catholic who had argued that the definition of papal infallibility was
inopportune. The context in which he is writing to Creighton is significant: he
is discussing his review of a volume of the bishop's History of the Papacy
concerning the Renaissance popes. Acton is specifically talking about the
approval by Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) of the Spanish Inquisition, and he goes
on to say that nineteenth century." Liberals think persecution a crime of a
worse order than adultery and the acts done by (the Spanish Cardinal) Ximines
considerably worse than the entertainment of Roman courtesans by Alexander VI
.7 He continues:
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King
unlike other men, with a favored presumption that they did no wrong. If there
is any presumption, it is the other way, against holders of power, increasing
as the power increases ... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad... Still more when you superadd the
tendency or certainty of corruption by authority. 8
The powerful often use 'reasons of state' to sanction evil
actions. Acton says this itself is a result of the corruptive nature of power.
Also power can be held onto for too long. John Henry Newman is quite blunt
about this. Writing just after the definition of papal infallibility in
November 1870 he says of the pope of the time, Pius IX (1846-18781:
We have come to a climax of tyranny. It is not good for a pope to
live twenty years. It is an anomaly and bears no good fruit; he becomes a god
and has no one to contradict him, does not know facts and does cruel things
without meaning it. 9
This comment has a remarkably contemporary ring to it!
What evidence is there to support my claim that the modern papacy
abuses power? Two recent incidents illustrate this.
Modern Papacy Abuses Power I
Early in 1999 it was revealed that several Vatican officials,
including the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano (a former papal nuncio
in Chile), and Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estivez (former Archbishop of
Santiago, now Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments),
had attempted to pressure the British government through diplomatic channels to
release the former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet. They asked that he be
returned to Chile for "humanitarian reasons" and "national reconciliation,"
even though there were outstanding charges against him for murder, torture and
human rights abuses, and an extradition order from Spain. Apparently, they
advanced the argument that the arrest of Pinochet was an affront to Chile's
national sovereignty." This attempted interference showed a monumental
disregard for British law and its processes. The curialists had reverted to
playing medieval power games when popes acted as arbiters between princes and
made judgements about so-called "affronts to national sovereignty." The notion
of the Vatican as a as a separate sovereign state plays into these illusions of
power and In fact the Secretary of State's action was a silly power-play,
whether conscious or unconscious, aimed at accepted processes of law on behalf
of a former despised former dictator. Fortunately, it was unsuccessful.
Modern Papacy Abuses Power II
The second example shows a complete disregard for the pastoral of
During the December 1998 Synod for Oceania in Rome, the Australian bishops were
reasonably outspoken about the pastoral needs of the local church. However,
before the Synod met, a group of curial officials (there were five Italians,
and one each from Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Spain and Poland, and none of these
clerics had any direct pastoral or other knowledge of Australia),and several
dragooned Australian bishops met and put together a Statement of Conclusions!
This was issued at the end of the Synod and it contradicted much that even some
of the dragooned bishops had said during the gathering The vast majority of
Australian Catholics felt the Statement was inaccurate and unsympathetic to the
local church, and out of touch with the realities of national life.
Public reaction among Australian Catholics centered on the
Vatican's rejection of the wide-spread use of the Third Rite of Reconciliation
with general absolution. What emerged, through the secular media, was that a
small group (the Australian Catholics Advocacy Center) had been monitoring the
use of general absolution in parishes and dioceses. Clearly they had very good
access to senior curial officials. It became obvious through the media that it
was their view of the Australian church, rather than that of the local bishops
that was taken as normative in Rome.
Over a period of more than two decades these services of
reconciliation had brought large numbers of Catholics back to the sacrament.
Despite this, Rome simply enforced its will that private confession was the
only permitted form of the sacrament. The Australian bishops, with a side-swipe
at what they called "deliberate and intrusive surveillance of clergy and
liturgical celebrations", simply surrendered, and abandoning their leadership
role in the local church, fell back on accusing the usual suspects: "a crisis
of faith," "secularization," and "less than appropriate practices ...(in)
liturgical celebrations." 11 The bishops ignored their own and their people's
pastoral experience and simply submitted to Roman power.
This also points up another profoundly corruptive influence at
work throughout Catholicism: the disjunction between what bishops and priests
personally believe and know from pastoral experience, and what they say, do and
support in public. There is a kind of deceit widespread in Catholicism today.
Many priests are highly critical of hierarchical policies among themselves, but
will never say so in public. If they ever speak critically to anyone, it is
always 'off the record'. Thus they are never forced to say honestly and
publically what they actually think. The illusion of uniformity is maintained
while truth and ecclesial unity is undermined.
In this context Rosemary Ruether, after several years of
experience negotiating a statement on women with the United States bishops,
commented at a previous international CORPUS conference:
I came to the intuition that bishops are men with a particular
personality structure; men who went from being sons to being fathers without
ever becoming independent adults. No matter how much they might come to agree
privately on subjects like women's ordination, they could not take a position
contrary to the pope on their own. Thinking independently on such questions was
for them unthinkable.
She says that this led to them being fixated between rebellion and
submission; they used submission "as a way of assuaging feelings of guilt for
bebellion." Thus they never trusted their judgment and used power as a form of
self-assurance." Again the issue of power and its use becomes central in church
life.
III. CONTINUING THE REFORMING TASK
So where does all this leave us? What do we need to do to sustain
us to continue the reforming task?
Firstly, we have to accept that we are involved in a long-term
task, not something that will be achieved in our generation. John L. Allen, in
a profile of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger in the National Catholic Reporter, makes
the point that the Prefect of the CDF is interested in the long-term, in
shaping "the way the church thinks about a controversy 200 years from now."
Reforming Catholics must take the same view. Our asceticism must
be that of knowing that personally we will probably never achieve what we set
out to do. We will not even be certain if we are right in what we are trying to
achieve. Someone further down the track will judge that.
The greatest temptation we face was well known to the early
hermits in the desert: 'acidia' - the noonday demon. This is the sense of
weariness and frustration that can infect us. We feel that no matter what we
do, nothing in the church will change. It is described by the great theorist of
mysticism, Evagrius of Pontus (c.345-399). The demon, he says, drives the
hermit to desire some other place (than the desert cell),where he would more
easily find what he where he could do some work that would be easier and more
profitable ... The demon) describes the long time the monk still has to live
... and sets the machinery going that will drive (him) to leave his cell and
flee from the arena.
All people in reform movements of whatever sort run up against
'acidia.' It develops because of inflated expectations that change will happen
quickly when, in fact, ecclesiastical intransigence has succeeded in blocking
almost every attempt at the reform of church structure since Vatican II. As a
result people become frustrated, cynical and eventually withdraw. Often there
is the perception that it is only middle aged and older Catholics who are
committed, that younger people are not interested in the church at all.
This can be re-enforced by recent comments such as those of
Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna that reform minded Catholics are aging
radicals from the 1960's infected with the "hermeneutic of suspicion," or
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago who described liberal Catholicism as an
"exhausted project" and "parasitical."15 All this can make 'acidial' a real
temptation.
The only response to this battle-weariness is, in Father Daniel
Berrigan's phrase, the "spirituality of the long haul." Real structural change
is a life-long task that is only brought about by small, committed groups of
people. Those on top of the hierarchical ladder have too much invested interest
in the maintenance of the structure, or to many external pressures on them, to
perceive the need for renewal and the energy needed for change. That is why the
fidelity of a group of committed Catholics at the core of the church is so
important. It will be their adherence to a renewed vision of Catholicism and
their determination to make that vision real in church structures, no matter
what the obstacles, that will be an essential element in realizing a whole new
way of living Catholic Christianity. Their spiritual foundation will need to be
mature and rock-solid, they will need to face the demons of fear and the sense
of uselessness that will be regularly present, and they need to trust the work
of the Spirit among younger Catholics.
IV. DEALING WITH INERT STRUCTURES
Certainly change is occurring at the local level all over the
world. But this is not my primary focus here. The local community needs a
broader ecclesial context and it is with this that I am concerned. The danger
we face is that a wedge will be driven between the local community and the
wider institutional church. We face an impasse in contemporary Catholicism
precisely because we have neglected questions of power and structure.
At the core of the problem is the office of pope. Vatican
commentator, Giancarlo Zizola, has asked recently whether the papacy is too
much for one man? "The question that leaps to the mind is whether the papal
institution has not become so insupportable as to be sacrificial? 16 He wonders
aloud if the "structural pathology of the papal system" has not led Pope
Wojtyla to an illness (Zizola calls it a "personal pathology") which could be
already crippling for the whole institution. Zizola also muses about what would
happen if a pope's health broke down altogether, if he lost his mind? A
mentally incapacitated pope would be a nightmare scenario for such a highly
centralized system. There is no process for dealing with papal incapacity
because the church has resigned herself "to a self-deluding interpretation of
papal sovereignty. 17 Only the abandonment of temporal power and the devolution
of ecclesial authority to a world synod and to national bishops' conferences
could prepare the church for such an eventuality.
Cardinal Franz Koenig, former Archbishop of Vienna, highlights two
of the central interconnected structural issues that the church faces: inflated
centralism and marginalization of the bishops. Having shown that various
examples of pluralism and subsidiarity have long existed in Catholic tradition,
Koenig spells out the implications:
The issue is twofold ... On the one hand we have to strengthen the
bishop's collegial concern and responsibility for the whole Church in
accordance with Vatican II. On the other, we have to cease restricting the
competence of local and regional bishops as church leaders. That means ... that
bishops must have a say in episcopal appointments ... It also means giving the
bishops, conferences a more precise role and function."
In other words collegiality has to become a reality.
Zizola emphasizes that these reforms must occur within an
explicitly ecumenical context. John Paul II asked for this himself in the
encyclical Ut Unum Sint (25 May, 19951. The Pope admits that he cannot carry
the primatial task "by himself," and he prays that the Holy Spirit enlighten
"all the pastors and theologians of our churches, that we may seek - together,
of course - the forms in which this (primatial) ministry may accomplish a
service of love recognized by all." 19 In other words, this is a call to all
the churches to share in a dialogue about the future of the primacy. For John
Paul this is a radical offer.
Yet, as I read the comments of the Pope, Koenig and Zizola, I must
admit to a cynical feeling of 'deja vu' . They repeat what has been constantly
said over the last 30 years since Vatican II. But ecclesiastical inaction
indicates that reform will not come from the hierarchy. The historical
precedents are almost non-existent. While lip-service is regularly paid to
ecumenism and a more synodal, participative approach, the response of Rome to
those who press for structural reform is negative.
In this context it is interesting to examine the shifting profile
of those appointed bishops in the Anglo-American world. A decade ago in the
United States and Canada there was a significant group of bishops willing to
speak out strongly on issues of broad public interest, but this has been muted
recently by the increasing appointment, especially in the United States, of
safe,, uninspiring, conservative bishops who are almost exclusively focused
intramural, ecclesiastical issues. In contrast, over the last decade Australia
has had a number of good, pastoral bishops appointed. 'Down Under' was an
ecclesiastical backwater of little interest to Rome. However, since the country
has come to Vatican attention as a result of the Oceania synod, my guess is
that those who are now going to be appointed bishops will be similar to the
contemporary United States profile.
Given the significant failure of leadership, where does this leave
us? The answer lies in trying to renew the Catholic tradition from within and
below. There are several ways to attempt this. First, we have to imagine,
develop and debate among ourselves different models of church based more on the
ancient notion of 'communio' Communion is founded on equality; all sit equally
at the Lord's table. It expresses itself through sharing of gifts; all members
contribute to building up the community's identity and service. The symbolic
core is the common eucharistic celebration. In the early church this was
presided over by the bishop who had been elected by all, was known to all, and
was confirmed in office by other local bishops. The community was in communion
with other communities, and the church universal was comprised of a communion
of communions.
Nowadays, with modern mobility, the local 'communio' is just as
likely to be a group with common aims and causes - often reaching across an
ecumenical divide - as it is people who live in a specific area. Many people
involved in the church will belong to more than one communion. Some of these
might be entirely Catholic, others ecumenical. Often Catholics will find that
they have more in common with their Anglican or Protestant brethren than they
do with some other Catholics.
Ecumenism is not just negotiating agreements between churches.
These agreements are usually quickly negated by an official failure to follow
up with inter communion. Real ecumenism nowadays is occurring among groups of
Christian people who work out of common theologies and spiritualities, or who
share ministerial objectives. It is around these common theoretical and
practical interests that Christians of various denominations are sharing a
common faith and entering into genuine communion. Clearly, the notion of
'communio' has much in common with democracy, although the tedious objection
that ,the church is not a democracy, is just as true as the fact that it is not
an absolute monarchy either. As Eugene C. Bianchi points out in his paper "A
Spirituality of Democracy", the essentially democratic principles of
subsidiarity, dialogue, election, accountability, representation and devolution
of power can provide the spiritual foundation for Christians living in
communion."
A key element in building communion is avoiding sectarian
ingroups. An important way of achieving this is by creating new agendas for the
church by discerning and participating in public discourse about the issues
that are basically important for the culture. Occasionally, these will coalesce
with hierarchical agendas, but mostly they will not. In many ways Catholicism
has been absent from public discourse recently, and often only engages in a
very narrow range of issues, such as abortion, personal ethics, or safe, non
controversial aspects of social justice.
What needs to happen is that we join other Christians in areas
like media, law, medicine, science, technology, industry and business to
encourage and sponsor discussion and debate of moral, ethical, ecological,
philosophical and theological issues. we need grassroots organizations and
structures that give shape and direction to these discussions, that help inject
them into media and make them part of public discourse. These need to be
collegial in structure and should be small enough to operate by consensus. They
should also give support to members and protect them from the browbeating that
so often greets those who take a critical stand.
By taking initiatives in the wider world, Catholics keep pressure
on the internal structure of the church. For change comes by acting, by
creating new traditions, by finding new ways of doing things, by refusing to be
bound by pharisaical rules . We do not need from to art as Catholics and so we
should assume the right to take the initiative. The onus then is on the church
leader to stop us. The Catholic who acts as a change-agent must stop thinking
in hierarchical terms. Catholicism could do with a lot more disorder! This
involves living with the ambiguity of acting outside the 'rules', of
establishing new ways of doing things.
Canon law recognizes the significance of custom. Even in a narrow
sense it concedes that the actions of a community can, after a time, obtain
"the force of law. 21 In his very useful booklet The Canonical Doctrine of
Reception, James Coriden says that a community's practices "can have the
juridical effect of establishing a custom which eventually takes on the force
of law." 22 He also comments that the "non-reception of a law is an indication
of the on-set of a contrary custom 21 Non-reception is the flip side of the
canonical and theological doctrine of reception. A law or a doctrinal teaching
depend upon by the congregation of the faithful. Newman describes this as "the
ultimate guarantee of revealed truth. 24
I began by pointing out that Catholicism is undergoing one of the
periodic, seismic mutations that occur in its history. These are drawn-out,
difficult and painful re-alignments that call for serious commitment from those
who live through them. In the process of working through these mutations people
may express their commitment in different ways and in various forms, but the
whole process demands a deep-seated spirituality and a profound realization of
the richness of the tradition to which we belong, together with an absolute
unwillingness to abandon what is best in Catholicism. It is part, albeit a
difficult part, of the ever changing reality that makes up the church's life.
Newman expresses this beautifully in the Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine he says that the church's belief and inner life is like an idea which
is continually clarified and expanded by development and growth. Comparing it
to a river he says the more the church grows and changes, the more it becomes
truly itself.
It is indeed sometimes said that the stream is clearest near the
spring. Whatever use may be fairly made of this image, it does not apply to the
history of philosophy or belief, which on the contrary is more equable, and
purer, and stronger when its bed has become broad, and deep, and full...In a
higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change and to be
perfect is to have changed often."
The significant opportunity for the contemporary Catholic is that
they have a chance to be an important part of that process of change.
Talking of streams and rivers reminds us that there is a sense in
which many Catholics today are actually called to be "pontiffs" in the literal
sense. The word comes from "pons facere", to build a bridge, and the challenge
before us is to participate in that task: to provide the link between the
Catholicism of the past and the creative manifestations of the tradition that
are yet to come.
To live at that level of risk requires great courage. It remains
to be seen if we have it?
PAUL COLLINS is an Australian Catholic priest, broadcaster and
writer. -His 1997 book Papal Power (London: Harper Collins) is being
examined by the CDF. His own favorite book is God's Earth. Religion as if
matter Really Mattered (Melbourne: HarperCollins, 1995). If focuses on the
interaction between ecology and faith and theology.
1. John Wilkins, "Reformed Church, Unreformed Papacy" in Gary
MacEoin (Ed), The Papacy and the People of God, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1998, p
124.
2. Paul Collins, Mixed Blessings. John Paul II and the Church of
the Eighties Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1986, 6.
3. For details see Mixed Blessings, pp 11-12.
4. Matthew Fox, 'Is the Catholic Church Today a Dysfunctional
Family? A Pastoral Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger and the Whole Church',
Creation, November/December 1988. within a structural context and it is the
system that needs to be modified.
5 Norman P. Tanner (ed) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
London: Sheed and Ward, 1990. Vol II, pp 814-815.
6. John Acton to Mandell Creighton, March 1887. Quoted in Mrs
Louise Creighton, Mandell Creighton, his Life and Letters, London: Longmans,
Green and Co. 1906. Vol I, p 372.
7. Acton, op. cit, p 371.
8 . Acton, op. cit., p 372.
9. Newman to Lady Simeon, 18 November 1870. The Letters and
Diaries of John Henry Newman Charles Stephen Dessain and Thomas Gornall,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Vol XXV, p 231.
10. See The Tablet, 27 February 1999, p 307. See also ibid., pp
288-290 for a background article.
11 In a Letter from the Australian Bishops to the Catholic People
of Australia, 14 April 1999.
Parag 11 and 9.
12. Rosemary Ruether, Corpus Conference, Brazilia, August
1997.
13. John L. Allen, "The Vatican's Enforcer, "National Catholic
Reporter, 16 April 1999, p 19.
14 * PG, XL, 1237. Translation in Louis Bouyer, The Spirituality
of the New Testament and the Fathers, New York: Seabury Press, 1963. p 385.
15. For Schonborn's comments see National Catholic Reporter, 9
April 1999, p 6, and for George's see National Catholic Reporter, 19 February
1999, pp 3 and 32. For George's response, see 2 April 1999, p 20.
16. Ciancarlo Zizola, "A Spiritual Papacy" in MacEoin, op. cit., p
53.
17. Zizola, p 51.
18.Franz Koenig, "My vision for the Church of the future," The
Tablet, 27 March 1999. p 426.
19. English translation by Society of St Paul (Homebush: St Pauls,
19951. Paragraphs 96, 95.
20. Eugene C. Bianchi, "A Spirituality of Democracy" Paper
preapred for the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church. (PO Box
912, Delran, NJ. 08075).
21. Canon 26. For custom see Canons 23
22. James A. Coriden, The Canonical Doctrine of Reception. Delran,
NJ: Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church. p 17. (For ARCC's
address see 20 above).
23. Coriden, p 11.
24. Newman to R.E. Froude, 30 March 1870, Letters and Diaries, op.
cit., Vol XXV, p 172.
25. John Henry Newman, An Essay Christian Doctrine, London:
Longmans, Green and Co., Eighth edition, 1891, p 40.
National Catholic Reporter, August 13,
1999
|