Paul Collins explanation of his
resignation from the priesthood
REASONS FOR RESIGNATION
After thirty-three years I have decided to resign as an
active priest to return to being an ordinary Catholic believer.
Many people will justifiably ask: Why? The reason is simple: I can no longer
conscientiously subscribe to the policies and theological emphases coming from
the Vatican and other official church sources.
While the reason is straight forward, the decision to resign is
the result of a personal and theological process. This, of course, is not a
step that I have taken lightly and I have been considering it for some time. I
will try to outline the reasons in detail.
The core of the problem is that, in my view, many in
ecclesiastical leadership at the highest level are actually moving in an
increasingly sectarian direction and watering down the catholicity of the
church and even unconsciously neglecting elements of its teaching. Since this
word catholicity will recur often I will define it. It is derived
from the Greek word katholikos that means general,
broad or universal. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary
defines catholicity as the quality of having sympathies with or being
all-embracing; broad-mindedness; tolerance.
But catholicity also has a profound theological meaning. The
recently appointed American Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ has a fine book entitled
The Catholicity of the Church (1988). Catholicity, he says, is
characterised by (1) inclusiveness, which means openness to various cultures
and opposition to sectarianism and religious individualism; (2) by an ability
to bridge generations and historical periods; (3) by an openness to truth and
value wherever it exists; (4) by a recognition that it is the Holy Spirit who
creates the unity of the church through whose indwelling we participate in the
life of God.
This is the kind of Catholicism that I, and many others, have
embraced throughout our lives. Its foundations, which are deeply embedded in
church history, were given modern expression in the vision of the church
articulated at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. For Catholics like
myself our benchmark is a church that is defined as the living sacrament of
Gods presence and the place where Gods sovereignty is acknowledged,
expressed through a participative community of people dedicated to the service
of the world and characterized by collegiality and ecumenism. It is precisely
this image of Catholicism which I think is being distorted by many at the
highest level in the contemporary church. I increasingly feel that being a
priest places me in the position of co-operating with structures that are
destructive of that open vision of Catholicism and of the faith of the people
who have embraced it. If I am to be true to my conscience, resignation seems
the only option.
The fact that we are retreating from the Vatican II vision of
Catholicism may not be everyones view of what is actually taking place in
the church. I accept that, and I also accept that the tension between a broad,
open vision of Catholicism rooted in living experience, and a narrower, static
hierarchical view of faith, runs right through church history.
It is my perception that at present many in the hierarchy and some
laity are moving increasingly in this narrow, elitist direction. Over the last
few years I have watched with escalating concern as a series of documents have
been published by the Vatican, the last of which was the declaration of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Jesus (DJ),
issued on 6 August 2000. DJ, which claims to protect the uniqueness of Christ,
in fact expresses a profoundly anti-ecumenical spirit at odds with the sense of
Gods grace permeating the whole cosmos. DJ gives voice to a wider
movement that is slowly but pervasively turning the Catholic church inward in
an increasingly sectarian direction. It is this which concerns me most.
Sectarianism is incompatible with genuine catholicity. It is the
antithesis of the kind of openness to the world, tolerant acceptance of others
and a sense of religious pluralism that most thinking Catholics have been
formed in and have embraced over the last three or four decades. Thus many
Catholics find themselves involved in a corrosive disjunction between what they
believe and have experienced, and the views expressed at the highest levels of
the church. The reason is because those who claim to articulate Catholic belief
seem to be abandoning their catholic spirit. As a result there is a
turning away from the other Christian churches, and a rejection of the search
for common ground with the other great religious traditions. Thus more and more
thinking Catholics who have been educated and live in pluralist, democratic and
tolerant societies, find themselves in conflict with church hierarchs who seem
to be moving in an ever-more sectarian direction.
Some times there is a hankering after a more genuinely Catholic
approach - as you find in John Paul IIs encyclical Ut unum sint
(1995), where he went so far as to ask the other churches for advice on papal
primacy. But ecclesiastical reality indicates that this hankering is, in fact,
merely ecumenical wishful- thinking, while the hierarchical reality is
exclusivist.
There have also been regular attempts to muzzle and
condemn the discussion of issues such as the ordination of women through the
use of a new category of doctrine. This has received its clearest expression in
the apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem (30 June 1998). The letter argues
that there is an intermediary, second level of revealed doctrine
between the established and defined teaching that all Catholics believe, and
what up until now has been called the ordinary magisterium. Before
the introduction of this so-called second level, all non-infallible
or non-defined teaching was exactly that: doctrine that should be respected and
offered various levels of submission of mind and will, but still ultimately
open to debate, discussion and development within the Church community.
What Ad Tuendam Fidem has done is to introduce formally
through this second level a category of definitive but
non-infallibly-defined doctrine. Cardinal Josef Ratzinger says that this
second-level teaching is, in fact, infallible. He says that it includes
all those teachings in the dogmatic or moral area which are
necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if
they have not been proposed by the magisterium as formally revealed. As
examples of second level definitive teaching he includes the condemnation of
euthanasia, the validity of the canonization of a particular saint, the
legitimacy of a papal election, and even the invalidity of Anglican orders. The
gratuitous reference to Anglican orders is astonishingly maladroit and
insulting; it reveals a real lack of ecumenical sensitivity.
There is also an emerging unspoken assumption among some very
senior church leaders that the contemporary western world is so far gone in
individualism, permissiveness and consumerism that it is totally impervious to
church teaching. Claiming to assume the broader historical perspective, these
churchmen have virtually abandoned the secularised masses, to nurture elitist
enclaves which will carry the true faith through to future, more
receptive generations. This is why the New Religious Movements
(NRMs) have received so much favour and patronage in this papacy. The NRMs have
embraced an essentially sectarian vision of Catholicism, are very hierarchical
in structure and theologically reactionary. This is true of some elements in
the Catholic charismatic movement, and also outfits like Opus Dei, Communion
and Liberation, the Neo-Catechuminate and the Legionaries of Christ, as well as
a number of other smaller, less significant groupings.
Over the years my public disquiet with increasing papal centralism
and the erosion of the vision of a more ecumenical Catholicism is well known,
especially in Australia. I have often been critical of the churchs
leadership, perhaps too harshly at times, in books, broadcasts, talks and
articles. I have been concerned with ecclesiastical narrowness and the de facto
denial of catholicity. But I also constantly argued that it was only by
staying in the priesthood that someone like myself could influence
things and bring about change. But it was always an every-day decision to
continue the struggle through the internal structures of the church. And there
can come a moment when you decide that both conscientiously and strategically
staying in no longer remains a viable or honest option. You realize
that you can no longer collude in what is happening by remaining in the
official priesthood.
While important, life-changing decisions may seem sudden to
outsiders, and even some times to the person who makes them, that is rarely the
case. Such conclusions are more likely to be the product of long unconscious
reflection on an issue. Slowly the connections, inferences and directional
movement in which the internal and unarticulated argument has been progressing
comes into consciousness. Often it will be a single event that focuses your
thought and impels you toward a decision. Suddenly you realize that, in
conscience, you can no longer allow your name to be associated with what is
happening. Of course, your judgement may be wrong, frighteningly so, but the
Catholic tradition has always been that you must follow even an erroneous
conscience. Certainly you must do everything you can to ascertain what is
really happening and what your obligations are, but in the end you must be true
to conscience.
What helped to focus my mind was the article Catholic
Fundamentalism. Some Implications of Dominus Jesus for Dialogue and
Peacemaking, by my friend, John DArcy May. [The article is one of a
series of essays in the book, Dominus Jesus. Anstoessige Wahrheit oder
anstoessige Kirche edited by Michael Rainer]. DJ is primarily directed
against those Catholics involved in the wider ecumenism who have
been trying to find common ground with the great non-Christian religious
traditions. But DJ also managed to offend many Anglicans and Protestants
through an awkwardly-worded passage that was so obscure that many journalists
incorrectly took it to mean that only Catholics could be saved. The passage
actually says that Anglicanism and the various forms of Protestantism are
not churches in the proper sense(DJ, Paragraph 17).
It was the opening sentences of Mays commentary that struck
me between the eyes. There is no reason, in principle, why the Roman
Catholic church, despite its enormous size and global presence, could not
become a sect. Sectarianism is a matter of mentality, not size ... The deep
shock Dominus Jesus caused in ecumenical circles consisted precisely in
their exposure to the specifically Roman Catholic form of fundamentalism.
This put into words what I had unconsciously concluded but had not
articulated.
It is precisely this movement in a sectarian and fundamentalist
direction with which I profoundly disagree. A person with a public commitment
like a priest is bound in conscience to ask: Can I continue to co-operate
with this kind of regime in the church? I feel bound in all honesty to
say now: No. I cannot. But I emphasize this does not mean that I
have the slightest intention of leaving the community of the Catholic church,
nor of abandoning my work in writing and media, as long as that is available to
me.
But there is also a second constellation of reasons that have led
to my resignation. They centre around the book Papal Power (1997) which is
currently being examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
(CDF), that part of the papal bureaucracy that deals with Catholic belief. I
have consistently tried to keep this so-called examination in
perspective and have not treated it too seriously. However, it is clear to me
that the CDF is moving toward an escalation of the issue. This inevitably
involves other people. The CDF demands that all correspondence with me pass
through a third party, the Superior General of my religious order, the
Missionaries of the Sacred Heart (MSCs). This means that my superiors and the
order will be caught in any cross-fire between the CDF and myself. I do not
wish to put them in this position.
On 14 December 2000 the current Superior General of the MSCs,
Father Michael Curran, was summoned to a meeting in the Palazzo of the Holy
Office in the Vatican. This meeting happened totally without my knowledge and I
only found out about it five weeks later. At the meeting Father Curran was
asked why I had not responded to three issues raised in a letter from the CDF
sent to me via Curran and my Australian superior in April 1999. He responded by
providing the CDF with an article I had written in a theological magazine
called Compass responding to the CDFs concerns. He felt the
article would go a long way to answering the CDFs questions.
In the course of the discussion reference was also made to a mildly critical
media statement about the CDF that I had made, which was briefly reported in
the US National Catholic Reporter (16 July 1999).
Ratzinger claimed in a subsequent letter to Curran (18 December
2000) that my critical comments may put [my] alleged adherence to
magisterial teaching in question. In other words, even if my theological
answers in the Compass article were found to be satisfactory, the
comments in the NCR would show that I had not really repented because I
was still criticising the CDF after writing the Compass article.
However, the Cardinals chronology was wrong. His comments
make it clear that he believes that the NCR interview was published
after the Compass article. In fact, the 16 July, 1999 NCR interview was
published several months before the spring 1999 edition of Compass. I suppose
you could forgive the Cardinal for not remembering that spring in the southern
hemisphere comes in September-October, and not in April-May as in the northern
hemisphere. The Compass interview was published in the southern spring of 1999,
which was October-November. That is some three or four months after the July
NCR article.
Be that as it may, the whole tone of Ratzingers letter to
Curran makes it obvious that the CDF is preparing to censure me because the
Cardinals comments clearly prejudge the issue. The constant difficulty in
dealing with the CDF is that your accusers are also your judges. An accused
person is not even allowed to choose their own defence counsel; they are not
even permitted to know the counsels name.
This situation with the CDF will be exacerbated even more when a
new book that I have edited is published in March in Australia and in the
northern spring of 2001 in London and New York. It is entitled From
Inquisition to Freedom. It consists of interviews that I put together with
six people who have also been investigated by the CDF. Those
participating in it are Tissa Balasuriya, Hans Küng, Charles Curran,
Lavinia Byrne, Jeannine Gramick, and Robert Nugent, as well as myself. I have
contributed two other essays, the first outlining the history of how the Roman
Inquisition eventually evolved into the CDF, and a second describing and
critiquing the details of the Congregations procedures. While the tone of
the book is respectful and moderate, I dont think it will win friends and
influence people in Rome. I foresee considerable problems. The most important
of these are that the book will eventually place Father Curran particularly,
and the MSCs generally, in the likely position of being forced by the CDF to
take some form of punitive action against me.
I have no doubt that the Congregation will not go away, and that
they will not let this matter rest. As the experience of the six other people
in the new book makes abundantly clear, there is never any form of dialogue.
The Congregation simply demands that a person not only submit to what they
define as doctrine, but they are determined that you actually use
the words that they dictate. I knew exactly what I was doing when I edited From
Inquisition to Freedom, but I thought it was important these stories be told
for they expose the injustice of the CDFs procedures and their
persecution of people who are clearly concerned to live a truly Catholic life
and to give ministerial and theological leadership to others. But there is also
no doubt that the book will lead to a further exacerbation of my relationship
with the CDF, and that the order and Father Curran will be caught in the
middle. My resignation will to some extent save them from that.
Finally, I want to make it absolutely clear that my resignation
does not mean that I have any intention whatsoever of leaving the Catholic
church. I am just changing status in the family. Catholicism is my home and I
have no intention of leaving - come what may.
Paul Collins, 1 February, 2001.
National Catholic Reporter, Posted March 9,
2001
|