Many bloggers are commenting on this story from Australia originally published by the Catholic News Agency:
Sydney, Jun 5, 2007 / 10:09 am (CNA).- The Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney wants its school leaders to publicly commit to a vow of fidelity by adhering to church teaching on some crucial issues--homosexuality, birth control and women's ordination.The vow would apply to its 167 principals, its deputy principals and religious education coordinators and would be a first for the Catholic Church in Australia, Fairfax newspapers report.The Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, is behind the move to extend the oath. He is perhaps drawing his inspiration from the apostolic exhortation issued by Pope John Paul II in 1990, Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church). In his exhortation, the late Holy Father calls for all those teaching theology in Catholic universities to take an oath of fidelity to the teaching of the Church and those who are not Catholic are asked to respect the Catholic identity of the school.
The conflict that is set up here has to do with the freedom of conscience that is supposed to belong to individuals versus the authority of the magisterium. The tricky part here is that the people who are being asked to take this vow of fidelity are representing the Church in some way. From the standpoint of a student it must be difficult to accept the authority of these school officials if it is known that the school officials themselves do not accept the authority of the Church. The natural reaction of the students would be to dismiss Catholic school claims to authority as meaningless. In other words I would favor such a policy for leaders in Catholic schools.
So, what happens then to freedom of conscience? I think that first of all, we must distinguish between matters of opinion and matters of conscience. Many times, when I find the opinion of the magisterium disagreeable I simply choose to ignore it. Is that a matter of conscience or a matter of taste? Generally regarding Church teaching it seems to me that a person who wants to claim a leadership role in the Church must strive first of all to use their intelligence and gifts of discernment to try to understand the basis for a particular teaching. In other words the first way to exercise intellect and freedom is to try to understand how to accept a particular teaching instead of deciding whether or not to accept it. If an intelligent person can, through prayer and study, understand the reasons for a particular church teaching; then accepting that teaching should be an easy thing. Accepting the teaching is just a consequence of occupying a leadership position in the teaching ministry of the Church.
For example, a while back I was asked to give an after-school presentation to teachers on the question of women's ordination. When I first studied this question my opinion was that the teaching of the Church was all wrong. However, because I was claiming some kind of leadership role I felt bound to study the teaching of the magisterium on this matter. Some of it was difficult to understand and not very compelling but I came to a point where I understood the scriptural and philosophical reasonableness of the Church's position. At that point I felt comfortable basing my presentation on the Church's position. Of course I drastically underestimated the emotional reactions that some people have on this topic but I felt that my duty was not to cast doubt on the magisterium but to try and show the reasonableness of the Church's position.
What would (should) I do if I can not understand the basis for the Church's teaching? Personally, I think that my first reaction should be to accept the teaching on the authority of the Church. Aside from the hermeneutics of suspicion I think that I should (unless proven otherwise) accept that the magisterial authority of the Church (Pope and Bishops) is made up of well-intentioned people who have the good of the whole Church in mind. What if my conscience (not taste) for some reason tells me after study and prayer that I cannot accept a particular teaching of the Church? Then, of course I must follow my conscience but still it seems to me that public dissent here does not advance the cause of Catholic education. Public silence on this matter of conscience for me would be called for. Of course you could come up with a hypothetical example where public dissent would be justified and expected but I don't think that such circumstances are likely.
Showing posts with label magisterium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label magisterium. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Accepting the Faith
"How much of this do I have to believe?" This question came in our RCIA group last night as we were discussing the Creed and its role in the profession of faith at the Easter Vigil. The quick answer to the question in the context of our discussion is to say that you must at least be able to say yes to the questions that make up the profession of faith. The longer answer needs to take into account the fact that people coming to the Catholic Church particularly from an evangelical background are likely to have problems with some aspects of Church teaching. So the larger question becomes, can I or should I join a Church if I "have problems" with some aspect of Church teaching, such as the doctrines surrounding Mary?
It seems to me that there are two ways to answer the question. The first way is simple, safe, and orthodox. "Some one hundred years ago a previous Pope named Benedict stated it simply when he said; Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected." So it is not possible to "pick and choose" regarding Catholic beliefs. You accept or reject the entire package of doctrine and magisterial teaching (both ordinary and extra-ordinary). So, if a candidate at the time of initiation did not feel that they could accept all of the teachings of the Church they should not join the Church.
A second, more complicated and slightly risky answer is to recall that adult christians of good will ought to be able to come to their own assent to Church teaching. Of course it is true that some central teachings require my assent. Without believing these things I could not be Catholic . But with these as with other beliefs I ought to be able by prayer and individual study (perhaps with some help and guidance) come to personal assent to the teaching in question. If I cannot come to this assent after prayer and study it might still be that I am called to be a member of the Catholic Church. This would be a matter for personal discernment in consultation with the pastor.
The analogy that we use in RCIA of the people of God on a physical journey (like the Hebrew people of Exodus) provides a way of clarifying these two answers. In the first case the people travel along a single well-worn path. The path is quite narrow and represents the way mapped out by our leaders and the people of God who have gone before us. People generally do not step outside of the boundaries of this path especially because of the danger of losing contact with the group. Outside of the boundaries we recognize that there are other paths that seem to go the way we are going but our path is uniquely ours. In the second case the people of God travel together but sometimes individuals wander a short way from the main path to explore something or another. At certain places where those who have gone before have found danger there is a narrowly marked path and people try to stick to the narrow path at those places. People recognize that those who have wandered a short way from the main path are still part of the group but they also recognize that if people wander too far they will lose contact with the group.
Each of the above answers has advantages and disadvantages. The first answer recognizes the authority of the magisterium. If everyone who is Catholic accepted this answer the Church would "speak with a single voice" and be a stronger moral force in the world. If the whole church practiced this answer it is likely that the Church would be smaller in numbers but perhaps more fervent in belief. The second answer recognizes the importance of the individual in coming to belief. It recognizes that while the magisterium has a central role to play in the faith of believers there is room for a certain diversity of belief within the body of the Church.
So, the answer that, on reflection I would give to my questioning candidate is that the Church is inviting new members to explore the richness of Catholic belief. When the new (potential) believer encounters something that seems difficult for them to believe the invitation is to further explore, study, seek help, and pray. Only the individual candidate together with the pastor or the RCIA director can say if a particular individual should join the Church at any particular time and in any particular circumstance.(now, why couldn't I come up with this when the question was asked?)
It seems to me that there are two ways to answer the question. The first way is simple, safe, and orthodox. "Some one hundred years ago a previous Pope named Benedict stated it simply when he said; Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected." So it is not possible to "pick and choose" regarding Catholic beliefs. You accept or reject the entire package of doctrine and magisterial teaching (both ordinary and extra-ordinary). So, if a candidate at the time of initiation did not feel that they could accept all of the teachings of the Church they should not join the Church.
A second, more complicated and slightly risky answer is to recall that adult christians of good will ought to be able to come to their own assent to Church teaching. Of course it is true that some central teachings require my assent. Without believing these things I could not be Catholic . But with these as with other beliefs I ought to be able by prayer and individual study (perhaps with some help and guidance) come to personal assent to the teaching in question. If I cannot come to this assent after prayer and study it might still be that I am called to be a member of the Catholic Church. This would be a matter for personal discernment in consultation with the pastor.
The analogy that we use in RCIA of the people of God on a physical journey (like the Hebrew people of Exodus) provides a way of clarifying these two answers. In the first case the people travel along a single well-worn path. The path is quite narrow and represents the way mapped out by our leaders and the people of God who have gone before us. People generally do not step outside of the boundaries of this path especially because of the danger of losing contact with the group. Outside of the boundaries we recognize that there are other paths that seem to go the way we are going but our path is uniquely ours. In the second case the people of God travel together but sometimes individuals wander a short way from the main path to explore something or another. At certain places where those who have gone before have found danger there is a narrowly marked path and people try to stick to the narrow path at those places. People recognize that those who have wandered a short way from the main path are still part of the group but they also recognize that if people wander too far they will lose contact with the group.
Each of the above answers has advantages and disadvantages. The first answer recognizes the authority of the magisterium. If everyone who is Catholic accepted this answer the Church would "speak with a single voice" and be a stronger moral force in the world. If the whole church practiced this answer it is likely that the Church would be smaller in numbers but perhaps more fervent in belief. The second answer recognizes the importance of the individual in coming to belief. It recognizes that while the magisterium has a central role to play in the faith of believers there is room for a certain diversity of belief within the body of the Church.
So, the answer that, on reflection I would give to my questioning candidate is that the Church is inviting new members to explore the richness of Catholic belief. When the new (potential) believer encounters something that seems difficult for them to believe the invitation is to further explore, study, seek help, and pray. Only the individual candidate together with the pastor or the RCIA director can say if a particular individual should join the Church at any particular time and in any particular circumstance.(now, why couldn't I come up with this when the question was asked?)
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Magisterial authority
These words written at the beginning of World War I by Pope Benedict XV (no not the one we have now) still illustrate the tensions the exist between individual freedom and the teaching authority of the Church:
24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
Conservative Catholics today use the term "cafeteria Catholics." By this they mean the Catholics who accept some aspects of Catholic teaching but do not accept others. This quote strongly suggests that we cannot pick and choose but rather must accept or reject the whole of the Catholic faith.
Many people today would, of course, reject such a statement. We have Catholics who are well educated in their faith and who as adults should be free to make their own minds up about their beliefs. The problem is this dissent from the teaching authority of the Church has become too easy to do. We can only disagree with the Church after much prayer and studying. At the same time it is important to remember that the Church in the 20th century, especially leading up to Vatican II, changed precisely because some theologians took the risk of pointing to problems in the Church. So, I guess the point is, I do not quite agree with the point made by the Pope above. Our first reaction to Church teaching should be to understand the reasonableness of the teaching in question and to agree with it. However, we need to recognize the possibility that persons of good faith could in some circumstances disagree with Church authority.
24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
Conservative Catholics today use the term "cafeteria Catholics." By this they mean the Catholics who accept some aspects of Catholic teaching but do not accept others. This quote strongly suggests that we cannot pick and choose but rather must accept or reject the whole of the Catholic faith.
Many people today would, of course, reject such a statement. We have Catholics who are well educated in their faith and who as adults should be free to make their own minds up about their beliefs. The problem is this dissent from the teaching authority of the Church has become too easy to do. We can only disagree with the Church after much prayer and studying. At the same time it is important to remember that the Church in the 20th century, especially leading up to Vatican II, changed precisely because some theologians took the risk of pointing to problems in the Church. So, I guess the point is, I do not quite agree with the point made by the Pope above. Our first reaction to Church teaching should be to understand the reasonableness of the teaching in question and to agree with it. However, we need to recognize the possibility that persons of good faith could in some circumstances disagree with Church authority.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Journey (3)
My two previous posts have deal with the image of journeying. Here is another aspect of journeying and its impact on individual spiritual growth.
I have a tendency to want stability and predictability in my life (I think this is typical of a lot of people). I seek to make my life comfortable and when something disrupts this comfort my first reaction is to try to dismiss whatever is causing this disruption. People familiar with dependency issues (alcoholism and such) refer to this reaction as denial. In actual fact we all have this denial reaction in us. When something challenges the system of perceptions and meanings that I have built up in my life my first reaction is probably not to find new ways of thinking about my life, but rather to find ways to dismiss the cause of the disruption.
We see this tendency in scripture. In Genesis 22 God’s instructs Abraham to sacrifice his only son. This would have been a deeply repulsive act for Abraham to do. Abraham’s willingness to do this makes him justified in the eyes of God and God promises many blessings to Abraham. Later on in Exodus Moses does not want to answer the call of God to return to Egypt. Moses finds a number of reasons why he cannot be the one to answer the call finally complaining that he is “slow of speech and slow of tongue”. (Exodus 4:10) Still later (Jonah 1:1) the reaction of the prophet Jonah on being commissioned to go preach in Nineveh is to set sail in the opposite direction. Likewise the reaction of the prophet Jeremiah to his call is that he is too young and cannot speak (Jeremiah 1:6). Jeremiah’s reaction is understandable of course, given the tendency of the people of the time to murder their prophets.
Similar stories are found in the Gospels of course. The rich young man (Matthew 19:21,22) leaves when Jesus challenges him to sell what he has. In chapter 6 of John’s gospel we find the people leaving Jesus because of his difficult teaching. The invitation of Jesus to follow him is in the context of taking up his cross (Matthew 16:24).
What these stories tell me is that while I am on my journey trying to discern the path that I should take in following Jesus I am likely to be given directions that I would rather not hear. When this happens the easiest reaction for me is to disregard the direction and choose my own way. I tell myself that I am a mature Christian with good knowledge of my faith and I have the freedom to make my own choices. The danger is, of course that I stop doing the will of God and end up following my own path. I make God in my own image rather than following the real God.
It is because of this danger that the Church urges me to be docile. The first meaning of docile is easily taught. The secondary meaning is easily led. My first reaction to the notion of being docile was quite negative. But I can see the value of docility in the context of the tendency that I might have (as outlined above) to put too much reliance on my own knowledge and will in discerning God’s path for me. Being docile or being obedient to the teaching authority of the Church does not mean that I ignore my own conscience or intelligence. What it means is that even when the teaching of the Church is hard for me my first inclination should be to try and understand why the teaching in question is reasonable and logical. I have faith that the magisterium of the Church is essentially only trying to point out God’s will for me and is not some arbitrary or capricious force depriving me of something.
I have a tendency to want stability and predictability in my life (I think this is typical of a lot of people). I seek to make my life comfortable and when something disrupts this comfort my first reaction is to try to dismiss whatever is causing this disruption. People familiar with dependency issues (alcoholism and such) refer to this reaction as denial. In actual fact we all have this denial reaction in us. When something challenges the system of perceptions and meanings that I have built up in my life my first reaction is probably not to find new ways of thinking about my life, but rather to find ways to dismiss the cause of the disruption.
We see this tendency in scripture. In Genesis 22 God’s instructs Abraham to sacrifice his only son. This would have been a deeply repulsive act for Abraham to do. Abraham’s willingness to do this makes him justified in the eyes of God and God promises many blessings to Abraham. Later on in Exodus Moses does not want to answer the call of God to return to Egypt. Moses finds a number of reasons why he cannot be the one to answer the call finally complaining that he is “slow of speech and slow of tongue”. (Exodus 4:10) Still later (Jonah 1:1) the reaction of the prophet Jonah on being commissioned to go preach in Nineveh is to set sail in the opposite direction. Likewise the reaction of the prophet Jeremiah to his call is that he is too young and cannot speak (Jeremiah 1:6). Jeremiah’s reaction is understandable of course, given the tendency of the people of the time to murder their prophets.
Similar stories are found in the Gospels of course. The rich young man (Matthew 19:21,22) leaves when Jesus challenges him to sell what he has. In chapter 6 of John’s gospel we find the people leaving Jesus because of his difficult teaching. The invitation of Jesus to follow him is in the context of taking up his cross (Matthew 16:24).
What these stories tell me is that while I am on my journey trying to discern the path that I should take in following Jesus I am likely to be given directions that I would rather not hear. When this happens the easiest reaction for me is to disregard the direction and choose my own way. I tell myself that I am a mature Christian with good knowledge of my faith and I have the freedom to make my own choices. The danger is, of course that I stop doing the will of God and end up following my own path. I make God in my own image rather than following the real God.
It is because of this danger that the Church urges me to be docile. The first meaning of docile is easily taught. The secondary meaning is easily led. My first reaction to the notion of being docile was quite negative. But I can see the value of docility in the context of the tendency that I might have (as outlined above) to put too much reliance on my own knowledge and will in discerning God’s path for me. Being docile or being obedient to the teaching authority of the Church does not mean that I ignore my own conscience or intelligence. What it means is that even when the teaching of the Church is hard for me my first inclination should be to try and understand why the teaching in question is reasonable and logical. I have faith that the magisterium of the Church is essentially only trying to point out God’s will for me and is not some arbitrary or capricious force depriving me of something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)