From John Allen to you

Dear People of “Open Book”:

I have followed with great interest your discussion of
my interview with Godspy and Amy’s reactions to it,
focused especially on the question of divisions in the
Church, and what to do about it. What I’d like to
offer here is an attempt to synthesize your discussion
so far, as a way of seeing if there are some core
points upon which all can agree, that might serve as a
basis for efforts to move forward. Since I’m
considering writing a book on this subject, your
comments would be extremely helpful to me.
Do the following five points seem like a fair summary?

1. Any call to communion in the Church, or to dialogue
as a means to that end, which implies going soft on
Catholic doctrine has no future. If people sense that
the price of admission is fuzziness about Catholic
identity, such efforts will be dead upon arrival. At
the same time, calls to communion which come off as
efforts to stifle legitimate debate, or to avoid adult
conversation, will be similarly unproductive.

2. Discernment is an important element in real
dialogue, meaning the right to reject an idea as
erroneous without violating the rules of polite
exchange. The aim is not just “getting along,” but
getting to the truth. Indeed, the reason we want to
open ourselves to others is the hope that in doing so,
more of that truth might become clear to us.

3. We shouldn’t exaggerate the problems of division
today. Division has always been a fact of life in the
Church, and in many ways it’s healthy. Nor should the
accusation of creating “division” be lodged against
those trying to defend strong convictions. Harmony
feels good, but it rarely leads to change; it is
loving challenge that forces us to grow. Hence we
shouldn’t demonize division, just as we shouldn’t
demonize those from whom we are divided.

4. While “ideological” borders are important in the
Church, there are other divisions that are just as
worthy of notice, including, as one poster observed,
the difference between those engaged in direct
pastoral work in the Church and those who aren’t.

5. One should not allow the media, or virtual
conversations such as Internet blogs, to dominate
one’s impression of the current situation in the
Church. As always, it is the most shrill and
determined voices which make noise, but they don’t
fully represent most people on the ground. Indeed, on
the question of communion and dialogue, many “average”
Catholics are probably far ahead of the chattering
classes.

Comments

[Lickona]

Dear John,
There was also some discussion of context - presenting difficult teachings not as institutional impositions but rather as the requests of a Lover letting you know how best to love.
But I don't want to quibble. Fine summary.

[Daniel W]

Overall, quite good. But I'm uncomfortable with point #3. I do agree that the tactic of lobbing the accusation of "division" at one's opponents is irresponsible. But to hold "division" and "change" up as goods, in an of themselves, is misguided.

Certainly, there has always been division in the Church. But isn't the whole point that we may all be one... in Christ? And change is good, to the extent that it gets us closer to being one in Christ. Otherwise, IMHO, it has no value whatsoever.

[Catholic Sensibility]

On point three, perhaps we could laud variety instead of division. People in religious life sort themselves into various "divisions" along the lines of the charisms of Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, Clare, and the like.

And instead of "change," we could all agree that metanoia, or renewal or reform, if you will, is a valuable spiritual practice. The sinner recognizes she or he is in need of change, and always has room to reform and grow in grace. Can any of us say our ideological positions are not occasionally colored by human weakness rather than divine fiat? In that sense, openness to change--metanoia lacks the modern baggage--is part of the ideal Christian condition.

Todd

[fr. frank]

John - Another book by John Allen? I want to read it. But let me first add my two centavos.

"At the same time, calls to communion which come off as
efforts to stifle legitimate debate, or to avoid adult
conversation, will be similarly unproductive."

I think this is the crux of the issue. 'Communion' means unity, but united in what? United in what we believe. United in what we believe the Church teaches about Faith and Morals.

And who defines what we believe? That's the argument. LG 25 and other instructive documents of the authentic magisterium would point to the Magisterium: the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops united to him. But not every Catholic agrees on that point. Some would say that if we humbly submit our intellect and will(obsequium religiosum intellectum ac voluntatum) to the authentic teachings of the Magisterium -- and never mind whether they are infallible or not --, that attitude would 'stifle legitimate debate . . . and adult conversation'. So how do we get unity if we disagree on such a fundamental point?

My sense is that the great divide in the Church -- which is reflected in our western culture -- comes down to morality and personal behavior, and is well addressed by JPII's 'Veritatis Splendor.' VS makes the bold statement that there is such a thing as absolute moral truth: and that the Church (read Magisterium) can recognize and define it. And I think that has to be the starting point for any meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, some would dismiss this idea as simply representing a "different ecclesiology". But if we don't 'think with the Church' , who do we think with? And if we reject the idea of absolute moral truth -- and the Magisterium's ability to recognize it and teach it -- are we not rejecting the very notion of our ability to find the truth? And if we are not all seeking truth, can we ever be united?

[TSO]

Nice summary. Number 5 ("One should not allow the media, or virtual conversations such as Internet blogs, to dominate one’s impression of the current situation in the Church") is more easily said than done. Reminds me of saying "don't think about an orange elephant".

I'll never forget what a former blog reader named Lee Ann wrote, "Since becoming a regular St. Blog reader I found myself nitpicking at Mass, trying to detect the creeping heterodoxy that so shivers the online timbers. I examined actions and gainsaid motives like I was the bastard child of Sherlock Holmes and Madame LeFarge." She went on to say that her experience of the Mass changed for the worse.

[patrick]

I think it is a good summary, and i would really agree with #5. The last place to get a balanced view is from blogs.

but more than the ground rules that you listed, I would also focus on the tone or quality of the conversation. i have found most poeple i know already accept the summary you give, they are adults and have formed their opinions and are not looking for "lite-communion" but they are able to discuss in a way that is respectful and to have real dialogue.

but dialogue is not possible with those who embrace an ideology, or those who just seek out blogs to vent and rant.

[Tim Drake]

John,

I like #5.

As you have so aptly stated before, there are also major "geographical" borders that determine Church policy and practice. It does seem as if the practices of particular bishops or dioceses are what so often lead to the perceived "divisions" in the Church, does it not?

We, as American Roman Catholics, need to be continually reminded of the fact that we belong to a universal Church.

I'm supportive of any effort to overcome the "liberal - conservative" language and trust that there are many, many of us who are tired of such language being used to describe the Church and those in it.

[Tim Ferguson]

I agree with Todd (mark that one down in your calendars) - metanoia is a better and more laudable term. While division and change are, ironically, constants, they're only valuable in that they have the potential to help us grow. Change for change's sake or division for division's sake is not a good ideal (and I know that John Allen's not adovacting that position).
In addition to not demonizing those with whom we disagree, I think there should be further, an effort to presume good faith on their part.

[Maclin Horton]

Sounds good to me. If this were a manifesto to which I was being asked to affix my signature, I'd like to see it continue from the interview the motif about suspicion, because I think that contributes a lot to the level of personal hostility that tends to turn up in these debates.

I had to laugh at TSO's quote above--I certainly recognize myself in that, although the syndrome in me has nothing to do with the online world, predating it by many years. I'd also add that it's probably an inevitable result of hearing fundamental doctrine undermined by authority, a problem which I think and hope is on the wane.

[Brigid]

Ditto to Lickona above, thus I will quibble a bit: Jesus gave us the command of Love. If this is not at the heart of what we are doing as Church, than I want off this carrousel ride!

And as one who has been a member of the chattering class for far too long, I will now get out of the way...

[JP]

John,

I think Fr Frank hit the nail on the head. To get to the heart of the issue, ultimatley it is the Magesterium that defines what we believe. We must all give ascent to this if we are to call ourselves Catholic. Quiet obedience is a difficult virtue -especially for Americans.

Faith, or what today people call Spirituality, is a totally autonomous thing. We are taught that it must come from the heart deep within ourselves for it to be authentic. Many Catholics are attracted to the raw emotionalism, the upbeat lounge music, and theraputic sermons of our Protestant Brethern. Religion, especially Catholicism is consider by many to be inauthentic because it is imposed from "above". That is why many people say they are not religious, but spiritual. This modern or
post modern strain of religion has also infected our Church. Doctrine, quiet obedience, mass and confession attendence, and private prayer (such as the rosary or Novenas) are the enemy. In order for many Catholics to enjoy a more modern form of spirituality, many beleive a reform of the Church is necessary. Questioning the validity of the Magesterium, the role of the Preist, lay vocations, the Mass, and even the Eucharist are now called into question.

It is not only a problem of division in our Church, but also we suffer from a 50 year identity crisis.

[Sherry Weddell]

"Some would say that if we humbly submit our intellect and will(obsequium religiosum intellectum ac voluntatum) to the authentic teachings of the Magisterium -- and never mind whether they are infallible or not --, that attitude would 'stifle legitimate debate . . . and adult conversation'. So how do we get unity if we disagree on such a fundamental point?"

Fr. Frank - this isn't aimed at you personally but at the viewpoint you described so well.

I've got to say that the most adult conversations about the faith and the world I've had have been with those who approach the deposit of faith with basic hermeneutic of faith and trust. Far from stifling discussion, it has launched a 1,000 discussions with lay Catholics, religious, priests and bishops - many with life-changing consequences.

The complexity and depth and nuance of Church teaching on almost any significant topic can keep you occupied full-time for years - it certainly has me - just trying to make sure that you've really grasped the essentials and aren't significantly distorting it when you try to pass it on. (A Dominican friend of mine told me that his homiletics professor warned his class: "You'll probably never give a homily that doesn't include at least one material heresy but you should at least know which one it is.")

As far as I have seen, trusting and trying to think with the Church - to be receptive to the Holy Spirit through the Church - leads inexorably to an engagement with myself, life, others, and the world that continuously calls me to see something new *and* to understand how little I do see.

If you believe that revelation is that which we were made for but cannot figure out on our own unless God revealed it to us, then it is both true and *alive*, universal and profoundly personal, infinitely deep and as specific and concrete as "what should I do this minute?"

Revelation speaks to the deepest desires of every generation but differently because their questions and lived experiences are different. We see different things because we ask different questions of God, of Revelation, and the questions we ask inevitably shape the answers we receive.

There is a response in 3,000 years of Tradition and lived encounter with God and life for nearly any question a human being can ask. But we shouldn't be surprised - or scandalized - at the resulting diversity.

[JP]

Instead of Liberal vs Conservative (Politcal language), prehaps we should use orthodox vs hetrodox (theological language).

[Tim Drake]

Tim:

And there's a whole lot of demonization going on isn't there?

I suspect that Allen receives demonization because of the publication that he works for, just as I do because of the publication that I work for. That demonization opens some doors and closes others.

"Oh, he works for the [insert typical diatribe here - e.g. Reporter - Distorter; Register - Sinister]..."

How do we transcend that?

With love and truth. Namely, with Christ.

Pope Benedict XVI offers an exemplary model of this, doesn't he? Whether it's "The Ratzinger Report" or "Salt of the Earth," or his homilies as Pope, he seems able to cut through the language, transcend the "politics", and lay out both the problems and the solution. He always points to Christ.

I would be dishonest if I didn't admit that the conversation has shades of "Common Ground" to it. Yet, I think there's something... no, make that someone, we're being called to.

I look forward to following the discussion.

[Daniel H. Conway]

Fr. Frank,

Your position indicates that there are no places of discussion for certain issues. I maintain that there are. Certainly, an occasionally healthy discussion of war, peace, torture, and violence has occured at Mark Shea's blog. And the magisterium has many voices on this matter-magisterium as interpreted with apparent faith by opinions as diverse as Weigel, Shea, Dietrich, and Berrigan.

And with regard to responsibility to the poor. How do the lay respond? As Peter Maurin and Dorothy day? As Robert Sirico?

And about abortion. What is the proper response? Do I have to consent to not only a faith belief that abortion is sin, but Karl Keating's political program too? Or can I retain the Feminists for Life position?

What about doctrinal development? Do you think that the moral acceptability of unions in the late 19th and early 20th century occurred because the magisterium was "way out in front" of the people on this matter? What about changes in the moral treatment of usury? Do you think the current magisterial position was not influenced by many others who clearly acted against early prohibitions on usury?

The "my way or the highway" approach to assent to the magisterium leads to a belief that their is a whole program for life without any questions, that all my life's answers are there. While providing strict guidance in many places, magisterial teaching also leaves many blanks and areas for experimentation and, if necessary, discussion.

Hence both an orthodox Catholic Worker House in Houston and orthodoxy within Sirico's Acton Institute.

[ben]

JP,

I like usig the theological language of orthodox vs. heterodox. However, how many Catholics of the "conservative republican" stripe who are really on board the ship of orthodoxy concerning sexual ethics and abortion would be comfortable with facing up the fact that many of their views concerning the war, minimum wage laws, labor unions, trade agreements, and undocumented immigrants are heterodox?

[Rich Leonardi]

Mr. Allen,

Fine summary. And Todd, I too like your invocation of metanoia instead of the value neutral term "change."

I've made this point before, but it bears repeating. Many of the "shrill voices" you come across on St. Blog's are survivors of the silly season. We're parents now and we're not going to suffer through another silly season in our parishes. We know what it did to our friends, brothers, sisters and cousins. That's why we (or at least "I") recoil from the "can't we get along?" business; at first blush it seems like -- and subsequently often is treated like -- cover for more silliness.

[Tony A]

Is orthodox vs heterodox really useful?

For a start, I noted that when NCR did their large survey of American catholics, one key result was that there is very little dissent on core matters of faith. Nobody denies creedal tenets, transubstantiation, sacraments etc. Is this enough common ground, or am I being too optimistic?

Beyond this it gets complicated, and strays into the political arena. But surely one area of common ground must the whole and complete gospel of life, as laid down in Gaudium Et Spes? And that should not involve cherry-picking (abortion and euthanasia on one side/ death penalty, nuclear weapons, and torture on the other). Nor should it involve elevating other moral teachings to the "gospel of life" level (gay marriage on one side/ social justice on the other).

In other words, could we agree on priorities? Nobody should be asked to ignore their deeply-held beliefs about marriage or poverty, but to use these issues as a litmus test against other believers does not strike me as particularly healthy. And the "seamless garment" approach to the gospel of life would innoculate the church against being too close to any political party, movement, or ideology. One sure way to wound the church is to align it with one political philosophy, even if the underlying intentions are good. Using religion to further political goals is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that Jesus condemned his fellow Pharisees for.

I would note here the response of Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, when criticized for praising the Conservative Party’s proposal to limit abortion to 20 weeks from the current 24. While defending his statement as “perfectly legitimate”, ne noted that he was not saying that Catholics should vote for any one particular party.” He rejected what he called the “specter” of an American-style blending of religion and politics. Let us not fall into the trap of many evangelicals.

I'm just thinking out loud here...

[RP Burke]

People on this weblog and others use "heterodox" as a swear word. So I wouldn't use that term just because of its smell.

[Tony A]

Rich raises another interesting point. If by "silly season", he means liturgical deviation and all kinds of similar nonsense, I am with him. But is this the real problem?

[Jon]

John:

In the Church not all believers are created equal. A chapter in you book deal with dissidence among BISHOPS, especially as dissent is motivated by ideologies and various hidden agendas. How would you answer the question of discipline for episcopal missbehavior?

[Tony A]

Mr. Allen,

Just wanted to tell you that I love your Opus Dei book. I admit that I had a pretty negative view of the movement, but your book has caused me to change my mind. We need more of this kind of thing!

Thanks,

Tony.

[Mike Hayes]

Excellent analysis as always by John Allen. Especially IMHO the remarks he makes about division. At times division causes all of us to look more carefully at why we hold the opinions we do. Prophetic voices often ring forth in dialogue and raise the bar a bit in conversation and unearth things that haven't been raised in previous conversations. I'd hate for those voices to be silenced.

At the same time, I hold great value in the tradition and in the magisterium who work hard to put voice to the best wisdom of our tradition with many of the best minds contributing to that process.

It seems to me that the word "wisdom" is key and holds much value for Americans in general. How do we proclaim the wisdom of both ancient and profound tradition along with modern experiential wisdom and express that wisdom in ways that the average catholic along with the sophisticated theologian can both understand?

[Rich Leonardi]

But is this the real problem?

You tell me.

[Brigid]

Tony A -

Could you possibly be referring to the Nicene Creed which all us Catholics, whether chatterers or not, are called to recite each Sunday?

Maybe the NCR survey points out why we are called to recite it each week?

[thomas tucker]

Tony- to which survery are you reffing? In my memory, which may be faulty, a large percentage of American Catholics who resopnded to a recent survey did not hold to an orthodox belief in the Real Presence.

[Rich Leonardi]

However, how many Catholics of the "conservative republican" stripe who are really on board the ship of orthodoxy concerning sexual ethics and abortion would be comfortable with facing up the fact that many of their views concerning the war, minimum wage laws, labor unions, trade agreements, and undocumented immigrants are heterodox?

Because of course there's only one legitimate Catholic point of view on such things. Let the season commence.

[Julia]

#1 The bit about "adult conversation" is excellent A few years ago at an ecumenical gathering after 9/11, Bishop Wilton Gregory said that a useful diolog can't take place unless the speaker knows well his own faith and the tenets on which it rests. I wonder if a lack of such knowledge lies behind some of the emotional casting of slurs from each side that we often see. If you can't explain your own position very well, all you have left is trying to be the loudest in the room, like kids.

#2 Being able to reject another's idea politely in a sincere search for truth presupposes that you have listened closely enough to understand the other person's idea. Your comment about Benedict saying he freed Hans Kung to further his thinking when he removed his licentiate was instructive. We need to make a distinction between officially teaching something and doing the researching and creative thinking that keeps the Church fresh. We need to take Benedict's famous listening abilities as a role model for ourselves.

#3 Many loving challenges have spurred me to new insights. Many such from Amy and the combox here, in addition to thoughtful writers like you, John, have sent me to great sources on-line that enrich my understanding of the faith.

#4 Another division would be between those who don't want to get into the nitty gritty of theological concepts but prefer to keep their faith a refuge and nurterer that is felt more than known versus the small minority who have as much interest in the intellectual aspects of the Catholic Faith as in its practice.

#5 Because I'm one of the minority that I described in #4, I have found blogs and sources on-line a God-send. I am blessed with only a few friends who want to get into "adult conversations" about where the Church is going, what is JPII's "Theology of the Body", the "spirit of the council" vs. what the documents actually said, etc., etc. Since I'm a choir member but not connected into the church business as a teacher, writer, priest, etc. there aren't many in my circle who are even interested in discussing this stuff. On-line I can check-out "America", "First Things", "The Word from Rome", the fascinating "Chiesa", "The Tablet", "Whispers in the Loggia", "Christianity Today", "Asia News", USCCB movie reviews, etc. and find out what the whole panapoly of Catholicism is thinking and doing.

I can read Benedict's works at his fanclub's website. I can read the actual documents of Vatican II, encyclicals, the Fathers and dip into the Catholic Encyclical on-line. Rather than exacerbating an existing ideological stance, I find the on-line Catholic world to be enriching and eye-opening. Of course, it does make it very possible to ghettoize if that's one's inclination. But even reading the most extreme views in this combox often spurs me to think and read further in areas I would never had considered, and exposes me to ideas I would never have heard in my off-line life.

Links in blogs and websites are the new magic!

[al]

I think the notion of positing "parameters" beyond those already established in the Tradition, and upheld in Magisterial Theology, and its Formal Codification in things like Canon Law is inherently problematic.

For example, number 1 sounds alright, but without the normative descriptions of the first concession, and a coherent definition of the second, it ultimately stands only to be misused as a "pox on both your houses" rhetorical device.

Specifically, Dialog is not really a means to "communion" in the Church. Certainly its a preliminary step, but "communion" comes from the unity given by a uniformity of belief.

And that should tell you something about the nature of communion itself. Communion is the identification of self with other. Ultimately the Metaphysical, Spiritual identification of self with other. Two, in dialog, is not communion. The Persons of the Trinity do not "dialog" with one another, they "know" one another in the sense, in a perfect sense of a Married Couple "knowing" one another--two as one.

Thus, its a problematic Ecclesiology at the outset, to propose dialog as a method for the increase of communion in the Church.

3 is equally objectionable, for the same reason. Unreconciled diversity in a body means symbiosis or parisitism, or decay, but all are disease.

Finally 5 is objectionable for the same reason--the implicit positing of a new ecclesiology, not on the basis of what's true, revealed or deduced from the revealed, but on the basis of what's "reasonable"

Sometimes the shrillest voice, the voice you least want to hear, is the truest one. Its the height of pride to suggest that we always want to hear the truth, and wont occasionally find it noxious. Whether that voice is heard in the confessional, from the pulpit, from the Cathedral Chair, from the internet, or from the bad smelling extremely devoted person in the back of the Church, true is true.

[fr. frank]

Dan - Well written. Please allow me to respond.

"Your position indicates that there are no places of discussion for certain issues. I maintain that there are."

Some issues which are defined -- e.g. aritificial birth control, ordination of women, instrinsic evil of abortion -- do not allow for discussion if we are to 'think with the Church.' That's the nature of definition. That's the ultimate purpose of Magisterium. That's the power of the keys of the kingdom, to bind and to loose.

Now there is discussion about whether these issues have been treated definitively: sometimes that discussion is fruitful, but many times it is futile. I have come across cases of obstinate refusal to accept/assent/hold to what the Church teaches, simply because it is not convenient.

"And about abortion. What is the proper response? Do I have to consent to not only a faith belief that abortion is sin . . ."

YES.

" . . but Karl Keating's political program too?"

NO.

" . . . Or can I retain the Feminists for Life position?"

I am not familiar with it, but my sense is YES.

"While providing strict guidance in many places, magisterial teaching also leaves many blanks and areas for experimentation and, if necessary, discussion. "

I agree.

[David Morrison]

Sorry folks, but this conversation remains too much of realm of ideas and ideals for me and not enough in the area where the rubber meets the road and where the stakes are very high.

This is more or less what I wrote Amy about this last night and now I share it with you too.

Mr. Allen, I respect and appreciate your work but how would this notion of unity been a help when one of my Courageous brothers repulsed a sexual advance by a priest?

How would it have been a help when the Cathedral of St Matthew young adults group wanted to invite me to come speak and were initially told that I could only come if a spokesman from Dignity were allowed to come speak as well?

How would it have been a help when someone confused about their sexual identity called me for advice after being is told in a confessional that what he really needs to do is to find himself a male lover?

How would it have been a help when one my dearest friends has been dreadfully discouraged because in the entire archdiocese of Chicago which has 864 secular and religious priests, not one can be found to chaplain a Courage chapter? Not one.

In my opinion, all this stuff is just talk unless things can really improve on the ground. Part of my problem of the "can't we all just get along" discussion is that it doesn't address where the rubber meets my road.

In my opinion, it shouldn't be a need for me to comfort and reassure someone who has had to rebuff a sexual pass from a priest. It should be the Cardinal's job to discipline him, and the Pope's to discipline the Cardinal when the Cardinal fails to keep his priests in order. Yet, that doesn't happen and to fervently wish it would is to somehow be an opponent to unity.

There shouldn't be a need for someeone to have to come up with reasons why a Catholic Cathedral should not allow speakers who believe homosexual sex is good to come speak at meetings it sponsors.

There shouldn't be a need to calm someone down after they have been told to find a male lover in the confessional. There shouldn't a reason, in a major Catholic archdiocese, the Chancery cannot seem to find one priest who will chaplain a support group for men and women who experience same sex attraction who want to live chastely in accord with their faith.

There shouldn't be a need for any of these things, but there has been and I don't see how talking about unity will help eliminate them.

All this unity stuff is too much in the realm of ideas. How can there be unity with folks who hold that killing an unborn child is an ok or even meritorious thing to do - and hold that position while calling themselves Catholic? How can there be unity with people who want to call themselves Catholic and who mock the idea of remaining chaste before marriage or of refraining from homosexual sex? What are we to be unified around? Whom are we to be unified around? Jesus, of course. But whose Jesus? The Jesus of Benedict XVI and John Paul II and all the Saints and Christendom through the ages, or the Jesus of people who assure us that Jesus really does like gay sex when it takes place in a loving relationship or the Jesus of people who hold that a woman can kill her unborn child for any reason or no reason and it should be nothing more than a medical procedure?

The unity of Christ is the unity of repentance, of turning away from the things and ideas that would lead us from Him. Outside of that, I am not sure where we can find unity.

[Old Zhou]

Yet another book.
Will not help.

[fr. frank]

"Yet another book.
Will not help."

I think it might. If Texas could beat USC, then Truth can conquer Error.

[Carrie]

My reaction to your analysis, John, ranges on a sliding scale from strongly agreeing with No. 1 to strongly disagreeing with No. 5.

There has been a break in doctrine at the point of Vatican II. Anyone who denies that comes off simply sounding disingenuous. Can both pre- and post-Vatican II be brought together in some sort of congenial unity? This Catholic would certainly hope so; but it hasn't been done, and I don't see evidence that anyone is sincere in trying to do it. Saying black is white when the opposite is obvious, just evokes my disgust.

Now that we have the web, anyone who wants to compare encyclicals can easily do so.
When you have dueling encyclicals and pope opposing pope, you are going to have chaos, and chaos is what we have.

[Rich Leonardi]

12:54:30 PM

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

Preach it, David!

The unity of Christ is the unity of repentance, of turning away from the things and ideas that would lead us from Him.

Amen.

The place to begin in a search for "unity" is the Examination of Conscience.

[Caroline]

Somewhere in the book I hope you will treat the problem created by the dogma of papal infallibility: dealing with those teachings which are not formally defined as infallible. Secondly, there is the teaching that doctrine develops. One can lay down rules for what is to be accepted as infallible outside official definition but there will always be arguments about how any particular issue falls within those rules. Likewise one can describe true versus false development of doctrine and still argue endlessly the application of those rules to a particular issue. We can't go back on the dogma of papal infallibility and we can't throw away the belief in development of doctrine; but it might be useful to admit (and provide a motivation to charity) that this dogma and that teaching have opened doors to disagreements probably for ever. And the sexual morality issues aren't the only important divisions, although they probably most affect people's lives. We still have big scientific issues to deal with--evolution, the creation of man, and so on. There is much work for theologians to do and many arguments yet to come. Maybe we haven't even seen arguments yet.

[Papabile]

I would note that it has been said the Magisterium defines what we believe as Catholics.

Yes and no.

Do not overlook Sacred Tradition as being an important component in defining beliefs. Well before the Magisterium of the Church spoke authoritatively of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, Catholics almost universally believed these as true. Theologians held that they were cert. sentire as a belief.

Benedict has spoken, repeatedly using the word 'unity', in addressing the bishops, priests and lay.

Unity in any discussion should assume an internal unity in both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The implications of ignoring orthodoxy call into the question the value of any discussions. Orthopraxitic differences, internal to the church, can be affected by legitimate custom. Hence, we're right back to the question of Sacred Tradition.

[Peter Nixon]

I am in general agreement with Allen’s points. But the question of what it means to be “going soft” on Catholic doctrine is exactly the issue in play. I suspect that it would be easy for all of us to agree in principle that we shouldn’t “go soft.” Where it gets hard is figuring out the line between “going soft” and legitimate doctrinal development.

At the Second Vatican Council, during the debate on the Declaration on Religious Liberty, there were a significant number of bishops who charged that the schema did, in fact, “go soft” on Catholic Doctrine, because the Church had held for a number of centuries that the state had an obligation to embrace religious truth and suppress religious error where it was possible to do so. This position was ultimately rejected by the Council, but there is no question that it required some difficult theological gymnastics to reconcile the Council’s position with a number of earlier papal statements. Difficult is not impossible, however, and—as John Courtney Murray remarked at the time—discerning the essential lines of doctrinal continuity is one of the services that theologians provide to the Church.

Let me offer a different example by way of a response to my fellow catechist Rich Leonardi, who was upset at some aspects of his parish’s recent catechesis on the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It’s not clear to me from Rich’s post whether he was upset at the things that were presented or the things that were left out. Based on the facts he presented, I, too, have some concerns. But it is a historical fact that the Sacrament of Reconciliation has undergone significant historical development and that the sacramental system as a whole has undergone development. These are historical facts and I see no reason to be afraid of them or to keep them out of my presentations. Better that those I teach learn from me than from the likes of Dan Brown.

So by all means, let us not “go soft.” But let us not be afraid of history and let us not pretend that historical facts are not true because we find them theologically or ecclesiastically inconvenient. To do so is not merely a sacrificum intellectum. It is an offense to the Truth who we profess to love and in whose life we seek to live.

[Loudon is a Fool]

To echo Al and Fr. Frank, when Mr. Allen writes: "At the same time, calls to communion which come off as efforts to stifle legitimate debate, or to avoid adult conversation, will be similarly unproductive" on the heels of "Any call to communion in the Church, or to dialogue as a means to that end, which implies going soft on Catholic doctrine has no future," I am made unsure of the meaning of "legitimate debate."

Does "legitimate" in this context refer to the legitimacy of topics of debate? That is, the ordination of women, contraception, and the leveling of Holy Orders being settled issues are not matters of legitimate debate? Or does "legitimate" refer to the style of debate, as its coupling with adult conversation seems to suggest? That is, shrill debate and ad hominem attacks on those born prior to 1967 are illegitimate?

If legitimacy goes to topic, I'm not sure that the observation is helpful. A good deal of the tension between these divisions is caused by either (i) disagreement as to what topics are or are not settled, or (ii) the concern among the orthodox that debate on unsettled topics is either a proxy or condition precedent for the debate on either a more controversial or a settled topic (e.g., the push for permanent deacons is intended to lead to the consideration of married priests and the increased use of adult female acolytes is really a push for women's ordination).

If legitimacy goes to the manner of debate (e.g., when in-the-pews Catholics what to know why they can't contracept, be nice) then fair enough, but in the last few pontificates issues of doctrine have been explained with a profound desire to avoid offense, often at the sacrifice of a more intelligible teaching. Yet the divisions have not healed.

[Rich Leonardi]

It’s not clear to me from Rich’s post whether he was upset at the things that were presented or the things that were left out.

Both. For example, denying that Christ established the sacraments -- which is what you do when you say it "wasn't a separate sacrament during the NT era" -- is both saying something and leaving something out.

Of course the sacraments developed, but nowhere was there an indication during this little session of parental catechesis that “beneath the changes in discipline and celebration that this sacrament has undergone over the centuries, the same fundamental structure is to be discerned” (CCC 1448). (No, it was a lay practice usurped by medieval clerics.)

And that's just item one. I won't divert this thread into a discussion of items (2)-(7), but it's worth noting that after this event my pastor took action. When this sort of nonsense was ascendant, that probably would not have happened. So there is progress indeed.

[Mike]

John-

I really do recommend to you Fr. Robert Barron's book on these issues. In it, he tries to suggest an approach for going beyond the divide which as the center of the inquiry here. Fr. Barron is a very well respected theologian who chairs the theology department at the major seminary in Chicago (St. Mary of the Lake). He has written a number of books. He also is the host of the Word on Fire website (www.wordonfire.org). In the last month he was asked by Cardinal George to re-invigorate evangelism in the Chicago Archdiocese, and as part of this effort he himself will have to try to bridge the divide in his outreach to Chicago Catholics.

The book I recommend on this subject is called "Bridging the Great Divide: Musings of a Post-Liberal, Post-Conservative Evangelical Catholic." If you get to the point of writing a book on this subject (which I think would be GREAT) I'm sure Fr. Barron would be very glad to talk to you.

Good luck.

Mike

[Greg Popcak]

Tony A.

The difficulty with applying the NCR survey--and many surveys of Catholic belief--is that it is easy to SAY, "I believe in God the Father Almighty..." It doesn't COST me anything to say that.

In my book, saying that Catholics don't disagree on these core credal beliefs is rather cold comfort because, while of critical importance, the dissent only really enters in when the faith actually costs me something personally. Not use the Pill? Actually pay taxes that will support social programs? Overcome my indignation and allow a murderer to live? Tell a mom she HAS to carry her baby when it would be easier to hush the problem up? Not engage in acts that feel good but may lead to my destruction and the destruction of others? Are you kidding me?

But I'm a good Catholic because I can say, "Lord, Lord." Well, no.

The challenge is dialogging with people who place their feelings and their own comforts above the pursuit of the truth. You can't do it. True dialog can only begin when all parties recognize that what they feel is irrelevant, and all that matters is both learning the truth and a willingness to be changed by it. You can't dialog with someone who just wants to be "validated." That's why I too prefer the term metanoia and also suggest that division is not a good thing. The division based on charisms are not divisions,they are complimentary differences. Division implies a rigidity that places validation of the self above the need to be willing to change in the face of the truth.

Don't get me wrong, there is a place in the Church for those needing validation, but it is not at the grown-up table where the hard questions have to be debated, discussed, and dealt with in a spirit of metanoia, which requires us all to get over ourselves and recognize that as the discussion develops we have to be willing to learn things that force us to change on a personal level.

The price of admission at the grown-up table has to be more than a willingness to be wrong. It has to be a willingness to be transformed.

[Maclin Horton]

Rich,

All I had to do was mouse over your timestamp to get a laugh. Still chuckling.

[Rich Leonardi]

Maclin: I'm glad I was proved wrong.

[Gregg the obscure]

The need for repentance is huge - and for no one is it more so than for me.

It's too easy to hear someone condemn sin x and then either try to rationalize sin x or holler back that the person condmening sin x is guilty of sin y (which must be at least as bad, if not more so).

[Brigid]

Greg-

Greg, you've introduced the word "table" with a bunch of Catholics.

Watch out for the onslaught...

Here's mine:

Just like this past T-giving with my own family, I ask humbly: put me at the kids table where I'm sure to get lots of love and laughter.

[Tom]

Indeed, the reason we want to open ourselves to others is the hope that in doing so, more of that truth might become clear to us.

That may be true -- I mean, that may be the reason we actually do happen to want to open ourselves to others -- but it's a rather shabby reason.

Not only is it selfish, such a utilitarian view of opening ourselves to others runs the very real risk of treating the others as a means to a personal end. I may wind up abusing the trust and openness of someone else if that abuse prompts them to act in a way that benefits my understanding of the truth.

Rather, we open ourselves to others because it is good and pleasant for brethren to dwell in unity. If the end is Christian charity -- that is, friendship in Christ -- then we can neither be selfish nor use each other as means. And we get the forseeable side-effect that more of the truth will become clear to us.

(Conversely, if the end isn't Christian charity -- if it's, say, a united Church or a tranquil parish -- then the thing will go off the rails however many core points are enumerated.)

[Tony A]

David Morrison,

You reproduce vicious slurs against Cardinal McCarrick and wonder why St. Matthew's won't invite you? Remember calumny and detraction can send one straight to hell (funny, these sins don't get much air time among certain elements of the right, do they?). McCarrick is doing wonderful work here. Let us pray for him.

Tony (a proud St. Matthew's parishioner).

[al]

Tony,
It seems you confuse "facts" with "vicious slurs". David Morrison only reiterated a few facts about the policies of the Archdiocese. To call them "vicious slurs" is itself a slur.

[Rich Leonardi]

McCarrick is doing wonderful work here.

Sitting on then-Cardinal Ratzinger's memo when the country was poised to elect a self-identified "former altar boy" who took checks from butchers was indeed wonderful, wasn't it?

[David Morrison]

Tony, the events that took place at St. Matts occurred before I said or wrote anything publicly about Cardinal McCarrick. I pray daily for him, also that the Vatican will accept his resignation at the earliest opportunity and appoint a prelate in his stead who is willing to do some really necessary housecleaning.

[Tony A]

Rich,

McCarrick's interpretation of the memo was exactly the right one, and he enjoys the confidence of Pope Benedict. Thankfully, he realizes that the future of the Catholic Church in the United States does not entail turning it into a subsidiary of the Republican party. Isn't the whole point of this thread about the need to stop interjecting secular political divisions into the Church? Leave that to the evangelicals!

[Floyd Ferguson]

John,

I think your point 5 is critically important, and particularly in terms of the overall Anger, Emotion, and Irrationality of the discourse. As a now greying and balding geek, I've been connected to the 'net since the '80's, and the virtual space has always been notorious for such vile, bitter vitriol as one could hardly imagine possible passing between civilized folk.

You may need a Point 0, something like, "if someone is an Angry Catholic, something is probably wrong, and maybe seriously so. You may be angry about Conservative issues (liturgy nazi's not letting people kneel after communion), or Liberal things (women denied the right to be ordained a priest). No doubt, God could choose to fix what is making you angry. Because he hasn't, we need to discuss these issues, but we need to eschew anger. The first point we need to agree, before moving to the others, is that Angry Catholics are Bad Catholics, always and everywhere, regardless of what they are Angry about, and we agree to not be Angry Catholics.

My $0.02, anyway.

[Rich Leonardi]

Nice dodge, Tony. As you know, the memo was directed to the bishops assembled, not just to Cardinal McCarrick.

Catholics are under an affirmative obligation to outlaw abortion, which is what Monsieur Kerry disputed. It's not a matter to "leave to the evangelicals," and you probably know this. Yet you use the "spirit" of this thread as cover for your curious agenda. All of which proves the point I made yesterday and today about the problem with the "can't we all just get along?" sentiment.

[jcecil3]

John,

I like your summary without any of the changes in emphasis or wording suggested in subsequent comments.

Addressing some concerns others have stated:

To those suggesting that LG 25 or other teachings mean that non-infallible teaching must be accepted as both the starting point, and the end point of disucssion, we have a bigger problem than simply stating that there is a difference in ecclesiology.

If ninety percent of American Roman Catholics are in dissent with Humanae Vitae - not just disobeying it, or ignorant of what the Church teaches on the subject - but in outright disagreement with it, what does that mean?

Most American Catholics have been mean to someone, or told a lie or two in their lives, and feel bad about it, and undergo some sort of repentance. The fact that we all have likely told a lie or acted meanly is human weakness, and we know we act sinfully and repent when we do so.

Some of us commit sins or disobey the Church in ignorance. That does happen.

On the issue of contraception, we are not dealing solely with human weakness, nor even ignorance.

Most Catholics using it are aware that the Pope is against it, and are unrepentant in their disobedience.

They do not claim to be too weak to follow the teaching. Instead, they claim the teaching is just wrong or unbelievable.

What does that mean?

In another example, if eighty percent of Americans - including large numbers of Catholics - were in disagreement with the first criteria of paragraph 2309 of the CCC for a just war that it is always and everywhere a defense against agression underway, what does that mean?

We aren't talking merely about the application of a doctrine, but the doctrine itself.

Nor are we talking about personal weakness, since most Americans are not in a position to decide to start a preemptive war.

We're talking about whether American Catholics even agree with the teaching at all, and what does it mean if most do not?

John Allen and I would like to propose to those who give Humanae Vitae or just war doctrine full assent that an adult conversation might help those in disagreement to move towards assent.

Yet, by definition, an adult conversation involves some assumption of parity and equal vulnerability - meaning that those who give the teaching assent may be persuaded the other direction as well.

While authentic Church teaching may be a conversation starter, we cannot predict in advance the outcome of an adult conversation about authentic doctrine.

Of course, we hold our positions passionately and nobody wants those passionate positions to be stated in such a watered down form that nobody would change positions on either side of whatever is being debated.

But an adult conversation, by definition, is a conversation where we cannot know at the outset whether or who will change their minds.

In the end, two adults may agree to disagree, or the side that started in defense of the magisterium may wind up changing just as surely as the side that was questioning the teaching.

When the conversation degenerates to nothing more than "Well, if you hold that opinion, you're just not Catholic" we are moved back to the fact that maybe ninety percent of self-defined Catholics in America are not Catholic at all - which would seem very odd.

And this is not a uniquely American phenomenon, or even a uniquely first world phenomenon.

The issues considered most important may sometimes be different in the developing world (i.e. - In Africa, "Are polygmaous marriages of a recent convert valid?" may be a more important and burning question than "Can a Catholic vote for a candidate who supports gay civil unions?").

Yet, no matter where we practice our faith, people are asking questions - people who are baptized and who are not rehashing the dogmatic debates already solemnly defined in prior eras.

Some questions are being shared close to globally (Why don't we have married priests?).

I would propose that our identity ought not be defined by everything held in authentic doctrine - though that may be the starting point of conversation.

Rather, our identity should be defined by what is solemnly (infallibly) defined through extraordinary magisterium.

Yet, in stating my own opinion here on what constitutes identity, I am already entering into a debate with others who have already commented.

And in some cases, it gets far more hairy.

The CDF wrote in October of 1998 that John Paul's position on women's ordination is to be held definitively.

Yet, Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict, wrote on the same day and on other occassions that this teaching is not solemnly defined. What does that mean - especially if identity is established by what is solemnly defined?

Can we discuss it or not?

If we cannot discuss these things, is it really the intent of those who will not discuss it to leave huge numbers of Catholics in the dark, confused and unable to give assent to so many authentic teachings?

By "huge numbers", I am referring to numbers that go past half of those who were baptized in the Catholic Church, self-define as Catholic, still believe in the solemnly defined doctrines in some sense, and still try to practice Catholic faith - especially through the sacraments - in some manner.

If more than half of such folks are in outright disagreement with a Church teaching - not only weak and falling into sin, but plain and simple refusal to believe that what the Vatican calls sin is truly sin - how do we deal with that?

An adult conversation presumes all such people might be persuaded. Yet, an adult conversation also presumes the minority giving assent might be persuaded the other way. And therein lies the rub.

Are the defenders of authentic teaching truly willing to have an adult conversation?

Are they willing to sit at table with one who openly admits to disagreeing with authentic doctrine, yet open to the possibility of being mistaken, and state to such a person from the outset that they are, in turn, open to the possibility that the non-infallible teaching is fallible and potentially contains an error?

Two conditions must be met for an adult conversation.

The dissenter must admit that he or she might be overlooking something, and that the defender of the Vatican might actually have a valid point that will change his or her mind from one of dissent to assent.

Yet, equally important, the defender of the Vatican must admit from the start that the dissenter might be raising questions that challenge the veracity of authentic doctrine, at least in part, and the doctrine may need to change in its formulation in order to encompass an answer to the dissenters deepest question.

If, from the start, defenders of the Vatican refuse such a dialogue, while dissenters see this as an "adult conversation", where does that leave us? Are dissenters implying that assenters are childish?

The issue isn't just ecclessiology, but what we even mean by "dialogue".

And dissenters have long expressed frustration with the Vatican that the communication is monologue, rather than dialogue. It is one way, from the top down.

So turning back to John Allen, while I embrace what you wrote as you wrote it, how do we deal with the reality that there are voices in the Church who believe from the start that the very idea of "an adult conversation" or a "mutual dialogue" has no genuine place in theological discourse?

How do we frame the division over the very starting point of what is meant by "conversation" in such a way as to avoid insulting those who hold that view?

That's my two cents.

Peace!

[Old Zhou]

Tony A. wrote: Isn't the whole point of this thread about the need to stop interjecting secular political divisions into the Church? Leave that to the evangelicals!

Wait a minute, friend. My former evangelical church was studiously, intentionally, apolitical. In fact, we actively discouraged participation in politics (an evil, corrupt business) and even discouraged voting. Politics was considered beyond redemption, and not a worthy interest of Christians. Where did Jesus, the apostles, or the New Testament Church get involved in politics? Rather, the political leadership (Rome) was a primary oppressor of the Church (segue into oppression of "real Christians" by Roman Catholic Church as heir of Roman politics...)

[Tony A]

Rich,

My "curious agenda" is to prevent the efforts of some (mainly laypeople) to align the Church with the Republican party. Personally, I think Bush is a duplicitous menace with his unjust war, his zeal for the death penalty, his defense of torture, his cynical use of "culture of life" language, his ruinous fiscal policy, his disdain for the international community, his appalling record on social justice and the environment etc etc etc... but I would never tell somebody that they might not be a good Catholic for voting for him. Weighing it up at the end of the day comes down to "proportionate reasons"-- McCarrick took the absolute correct approach, and as I said, he enjoys the confidence of the pope. After all, the author of the "Ratzinger letter" chose to re-appoint him.

Let me repeat the wise words of Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor (that I quoted earlier): After being criticized for praising the Conservative Party’s proposal to limit abortion, he defending his statement as “perfectly legitimate”, but noted that he was not saying that Catholics should vote for any one particular party.” He rejected what he called the “specter” of an American-style blending of religion and politics. God bless him! Again, the hardline position in the United States is led by a small unpresentative group of laypeople (though overly-represented in the blogoshphere!)-- but they are loud and shrill. You can count the number of bishops who support them on one hand.

[Tony A]

Sorry, Zhou, was being a bit facetious, didn't mean to tar all evangelicals with the same brush. I was referring to people like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson etc.

[Judy]

John - Fr. Raymond Souza says in the current issue of the National Catholic Register regarding your 1999 biography, Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith.: "His treatment then was the standard caricature-Cardinal Ratzinger against scholars, Cardinal Ratzinger against women, Cardinal Ratzinger against scientists, Cardinal Ratzinger against advocates of the poor."........."He denounced his book in 2004, which set the stage for this year's much more sympathetic work, The Rise of Benedict XVI."

I didn't read your first book so I can't comment on the accuracy of Fr. Souza's evaluation of it , but I did read The Rise of Benedict XVI and would describe it as fair rather than sympathetic. I felt that you were that one in a million journalist who had actually set aside your assumptions and prejudices in an sincere search for the truth. You treated everyone in the book so fairly that I found myself thinking, "How did he do that?". I finally concluded that for one thing, you actually believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, instead of just paying the idea lip-service while trashing your perceived opponents. This divine assumption, instead of making your book boring, actually gave it a fresh almost revolutionary quality. I am not interested in reading a book about healing church divisions; that is too utopian and global a topic for my taste. But I would devour a book that answers in detail my above question: How did he do that?"

[John B]

I agree 100% that the Catholic church should not become part and parcel of the Republican party, and in fact, I can not fathom how someone who tries to apply church teachings can take even support many of the policies that the likes of Limbaugh and the WSJ op ed pages support. As I said in a previous thread, a Catholic who fully into economic conservatism and American exceptionalism will have a high degree of difficulty if not impossibility trying to tie these into church teachings.

That said, the post 1968 Democrats on culture of life issues(and despite Pope John Paul II personal opposition to the death penalty, it is neither barred nor does it come close to the abortion issue, Cardinal Dulles has good essays on the issue), and cultural issues in general have been opposed to church teachings. As for enviromental issues, there is a big difference between legitimate conservation issues, a stewardship of the Earths resources, and radical enviromentalism, if not outright Earth/New Age worship that has come to dominate the Democratic party.

But again, neither party fits church teachings, and while in many cases the GOP is better, with their obsession over pro business globalism, they are drifting further and further away. One intresting not is that there is little support for President Bush or US foreign policy among traditionalist Catholic circles.

[Rich Leonardi]

Fallwell and Robertson haven't been relevant in, oh, about twenty years.

Your curious agenda is simply to tilt the playing field in favor of candidates who take either ambiguous or hostile positions to core social doctrines, e.g., abortion, ESR, etc., because you support their positions vis a vis the welfare state. (Hence, your parade of Bush horribles followed by the glib "but you can still vote for him" concession.)

If you'd read the Ratzinger Memo at all, you'd know that isn't permissible.

[Jimmy Mac]

Maybe it is time that we Catholics resurrect the old distinctions between the Creed, Code and Cult of Catholicism.

Or, to put it into more modern terms, the hierarchy of truths.

Both those on the izquierda and dereche (check out your old Spanish textbooks) are guilty of not being aware of the distinctions.

[Old Zhou]

Great! Now Jimmy Mac wants to bring back the Spanish Izquierdition. That is sure to help the dialogue, as they stretch out the Heterodox on DeRachet.

[Sue T.]

A couple general thoughts about divisions, engaging in dialogue, community, and such...

- One difficulty some of us might have in being open towards opposing views is when we have already made a huge shift in our own thinking. In my case, I went from being a cafeteria Catholic with dissenting opinions to seriously learning the faith and following it in an orthodox way. It's hard to be open to views that I believe go against God's will. Views that affected my life negatively. Views that I once held, but now think that I was wrong to hold. Conversely, someone who makes the shift in the other direction (orthodox/conservative to dissent) may have difficulty re-considering their original views.

- Nonetheless, I would like to understand dissenters more. When I was dissenter, I was just uninformed. When I first started reading the Fathers, about Theology of the Body, and other great solidly Catholic writings, I felt like I had discovered a huge treasure chest of philosophical and theological riches. I naively thought..."If only people would read Humane Vitae....", "If only people would listen to Fr. Corapi..." "If only people knew more about Church history..." (I still have a lot to learn myself I should add).

But obviously, a lot of dissenters do read encyclicals, do learn about church history, etc., but draw entirely different conclusions than the orthodox crowd.

Well, #3 is a great comfort to me. Plus, I do have faith that God will help us work it all out in the end.

Thanks everyone for the thought-proviking posts.

[DJP]

Mr. Allen:

On another subject.

Do you know if Sr. Joan Chisstler is a paid spokesperson for the Democratic Party?

Thank you

[Michael in ArchDen]

On the topic of partisanship, I'll defer to my (not-so) Ordinary who said (paraphrasing), "It's not that the Church is with the Republican party on some issues, but rather that the Republican party is with the Church on those issues."

[Rick]

If you'd read the Ratzinger Memo at all, you'd know that isn't permissible

Rich, where does the Ratzinger memo define the "proportionate reasons" that would permit a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports legal abortion?

Doesn't the memo — and Church teaching generally — leave open the question whether, in concrete circumstances, one has proportionate reasons to...

...vote for an abortion supporter
...go to war
...defer conception
...put a murderer to death
...discontinue medical treatment
...use vaccines cultured from aborted fetal cells
...oppose a tax increase for a welfare program
...etc?

It seems to me that many disputes between Catholics hinge on whether there are truly proportionate reasons for course of action X...and that the magisterium normally declines to settle these matters definitively.

[Francesca]

Ten or so years ago, I was teaching in an Anglican teacher training college down in England (now I'm in a secular University in Scotland). I went to America to spend a few weeks at a Catholic University there. There was a huge argument going on. I could not really follow it, but it was connected with 'virtue ethics.' The people engaged in this dispute thought of their opponents as being in absolute opposition to themselves. None of my Anglican and secular colleagues back in England could have told the difference between members of the opposing parties. It would have taken hours for someone to explain it to them, and once they got it, I don't think they'd have believed it mattered much.

Francesca

[Caroline]

To my mind, JC Cecil really nailed the problem up above.

What he says does bring me back to my problem with the papal infallibility doctrine way back in 1870. I accept that the Holy Spirit guarantees the truth of a doctrine but I don't accept that He guarantees the wisdom of stating a doctrine. And we sure painted ourselves in a corner with that one. There have been only three formally infallibily declared truths in the history of the Church and none of them are necessary to salvation except for those who cannot accept the practical consequences of a hierarchy of truths. And thanks to Jimmy Mac for bringing that into the discussion. What are the practical consequences of a hierarchy of truths and if there are none, why not just say that all truths are equal the way it was before?

The cat got out of the bag, the worms got out of the can with papal infallibility, development of doctrine, and hierarchy of truth. We can't put them back in without denying all three teachings.

[Carrie]

jcecil3 wrote: So turning back to John Allen, while I embrace what you wrote as you wrote it, how do we deal with the reality that there are voices in the Church who believe from the start that the very idea of "an adult conversation" or a "mutual dialogue" has no genuine place in theological discourse?

How do we frame the division over the very starting point of what is meant by "conversation" in such a way as to avoid insulting those who hold that view?

Keep all of your comments in the entire post, and change the topic from "adult conversation between Catholics" to "interreligious dialogue" and suddenly the entire focus of the Vatican leadership does a 180. Apparently Rome believes people of other religions are worthy of respect and have truth to contribute to Catholicism, but people of the Roman Catholic faith are not.

[Tony A]

Rick,

You nailed it!

Tony.

[Julia]

Earth to combox, Earth to combox:

Most Catholics are not arguing among themselves about some of the arcane issues expressed here today. On the other hand, academics and the chattering class are in the business of inventing difficulties so "division" is never going to go away among those folks - whether Catholic or not.

The Catholic Church is a big family - with all the messy stuff that comes with it. Three of my sibs are Democrats and three are Republicans. We all know that there are many things we don't challenge each other about - for the sake of family unity. But there are other things we must resolve and, no matter how difficult it is, we have to put aside animosity to get there. If a third party needs to make the decision, we defer to that 3rd party.

Yes, as someone said, we must recognize a hierarchy of truths, but we should also recognize a hierarchy of concerns. Some fights are just plain silly.

Benedict XVI invites his old doctorate students to Rome every year for a 3 day seminar. A no holds barred discussion of all the latest theological topics ensues. The other guy's opinion must be respected - that's not the same as agreement on ideas. Benedict is said to enjoy functioning as the facilitator. Perhaps he could put on a demonstration.

Rick said: "It seems to me that many disputes between Catholics hinge on whether there are truly proportionate reasons for course of action X...and that the magisterium normally declines to settle these matters definitively."

I think it John in The Word from Rome who observed that in Rome what sometime appear to be definitive statements or rules are in fact not so literally taken by the folks in Rome as we Americans take them. We joke that that 10 Commandments aren't guidelines, but sometimes Roman pronouncements are just that - guidelines in flux. We Americans are sometimes too legalistic.

Let's not get boxed into that compulsive search for absolute certainty that caused Luther all those nightmares, to which we might have over-reacted, which ended up in bloody conflict all over the Continent.

[craig]

Caroline, the Vatican I infallibly declared truths are "necessary" only to the extent that if you disbelieve them, you disbelieve in the Church's charism to preserve the apostolic deposit of faith uncorrupted. If there is a hierarchy of truths (and I do not dispute it), surely every Catholic must hold that charism first among them. To put it in OS terminology, the priority of the process Immaculate Conception is inherited from its parent process, infallibility. Now, I can respect the logic of those who think Vatican I should never have defined the operating mechanism of papal infallibility, but to say that it having been defined, any doctrine not so declared is up for grabs, is simply to adopt a default posture of skepticism. One might as well extend the skepticism to the early ecumenical councils too, as liberal Protestantism indeed has.

Per Jcecil's comment, intra-Catholic dialogue is possible where both sides are willing to say "Doctrine X is correct" even as they argue over the scope of what X entails. It's when one side argues "Doctrine X is incorrect and should be repudiated entirely" that the usefulness of dialogue is lost, I think.

[Anita]

I think it John in The Word from Rome who observed that in Rome what sometime appear to be definitive statements or rules are in fact not so literally taken by the folks in Rome as we Americans take them. We joke that that 10 Commandments aren't guidelines, but sometimes Roman pronouncements are just that - guidelines in flux. We Americans are sometimes too legalistic.

If Rome's prescriptives are meant as guidelines, then they should be so phrased. If they are meant as guidelines, phrasing them as commands is mere bullying.

This matter is sometimes discussed - by John Allen, among others - as though Rome just doesn't know that these statements will be taken literally, legalistically, by English-speaking Catholics. This impliedly presumes that the Vatican, one of the oldest and most diplomaticaly skilled organizations on the planet, is suddenly unbelievably naive.

You will forgive me perhaps if I don't buy that construction.

[fr. frank]

JC Cecil - 2 cents worth? That was more like 3 cents. I hear you, but let me raise you a nickel, and then I’ll fold.

But first let me state that the category “non-infallible teaching” is not found – to my knowledge – in any official document of the Church. It usually is found in the articles of . . . how shall we say it? clever dissenters of undeniably good will and charm. The categories used to describe teachings are: solemn, authentic, extraordinary, ordinary, definitive, and infallible. The “charism of infallibility”, dixit JP II on 9/15/87 in Los Angeles, is normally to be found in the ordinary exercise of the authentic Magisterium.

I get nervous with all this talk about “adult conversation”, because it is so . . . American!? So . . . .proud!? So unlike the words of Jesus!? I mean, after all, he never said “sophisticated, nuanced, adult conversation with it’s magical reliance on subtle hermeneutics will be your ticket into heaven and happiness on earth,” did he? Not to be preachy, but it was more like “believe like children, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Children are vulnerable, and in their vulnerability they can be humble.

Yeah, yeah, 90% of American Roman Catholics do not accept Humanae Vitae. But look at the results. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to statistically connect the dots linking ABC to the breakdown of marriage, and all of the negative consequences for society. Besides truth – are we really interested in Truth?? (certainly Pontius was not) – is not determined by a majority vote. It rises above it and stands on its own. And yeah, 98% of the English Bishops sided with Henry VIII. But were they looking for truth or to cover their assets? And what did it gain them?

Any decent person wants to live in peace with his neighbor (and everyone participating in this discussion seems to be decent), and to do so there must be unity at some level. I think the question needs to be: what is the starting point for unity among Roman Catholics qua Roman Catholic? My sense is official Church teaching. Now let’s move up a level: What is the starting point for unity among all Christians: Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. And so I have good friends who are Protestants. We do things together. Next level: Unity between Christians and Moslems? The ten Commandments and monotheism. And so, next week a Moslem student of mine will join us at the Right to Life March in D.C., and we are good friends. Unity between monotheists and pantheists? Human nature. And so another student at my school – from the Orient and never baptized – loves to play chess in my office at lunchtime . . . and we’re also friends. Unity between all human beings? Usually takes place when all have to pitch in to survive some natural disaster such as a tsunami or hurricane. For a Christian, he recognizes the image of Christ in every single human being, and thus can achieve inter-personal unity at some level.

Unity is extraordinarily important. Christ prayed for it at the last supper. But we need a starting point, a common ground, if you will. And what is that for a Roman Catholic? I maintain that it is official Roman Catholic teaching, infallible or not.

[Anita]

fr. frank,

Unity is extraordinarily important. Christ prayed for it at the last supper. But we need a starting point, a common ground, if you will. And what is that for a Roman Catholic? I maintain that it is official Roman Catholic teaching, infallible or not.

I'm puzzled by this statement. What is "official Roman Catholic teaching" for these purposes? At this level various teachings contradict each other. For example, what about the US bishop who declared that voting for any politician who is not anti-abortion excludes one from communion? Must we agree on this... when not all bishops agree? Do I follow my own bishop? And if so, do I find unity only with Catholics in my own diocese?

So.... official RC teaching would be what exactly? Therein lies the problem. Your formulation requires those interested in RC unity to agree with teachings which even you admit may be wrong. ("infallible or not")

Forgive me. You are a uniformed officer of this organization, and this is the wished-for party line. All organizations hope for such docility. Not many receive it.

[Old Zhou]

This discussion is coming to an interesting point.

One problem I ran into was:
How do you dialogue with Catholics who start by saying, "I don't care what Rome teaches! They are just a bunch of out-of-date, out-of-touch [fill-in-the-blank]."
I have heard this from many preists, as well as theologians at seminaries, and laity in my area (San Francisco/Berkeley).

So, you want to talk about how God is our mother? Why women should be ordained? Way the Church should support gay marriage? Why divorce and remarriage should be o.k.? Why contraception is a fact of life, and the Chruch should get with the program? Same with abortion.

When Catholics want to start the dialogue with a total nullification of not only what the Church teaches, but the authority of the Church to teach, dialogue is tough. Even Buddhists are not that hard; they might disagree with what the Church teaches, but they don't challenge the Church's authority to teach.

[Judy]

Thank you for putting your finger on the starting point Fr. Frank, in such a charitabe way.

[Dan]

I agree with Old Zhou and, way up above, David Morrison. If the divide is between those who are orthodox and those who are not, isn't better teaching -- and not "dialogue" -- what we need? Some issues are open to debate but the important ones are not and it is really only the important ones that create a divide that matters. Take abortion for example. I think most regular readers of this blog would agree that the Church's teachings on abortion are not, and should not be, "on the table" -- yet, across the great divide, there are a shocking number of Catholics who have a pro-choice mindset or who suddenly become very quiet when the subject of abortion comes up. Is anyone proposing that the issue of abortion be put on the table for "dialogue"? If so, what are we supposed to discuss? If not, what issues should be the subject of dialogue?

[Old Zhou]

Continuing a bit....

So, what does my parish do, with a lot of Catholics who think Rome and all things from it are irrelevant?

We move the "dialogue," the common discourse, away from the theological, the liturgical, the doctrinal, and instead keep people busy with social justice activities.

We may never agree on the morality of contraception, but we can all agree on the morality of collecting food for the food bank.

We may never agree on the place of women in the Church, but we can all agree to support a shelter for battered women.

Etc.

Care for the poor (without disucssion of theology, doctrines, dogmas, or anything from Rome) becomes the realm of silent cooperation and non-dialouge.

I suppose things could be worse.

[Caroline]

"The categories used to describe teachings are: solemn, authentic, extraordinary, ordinary, definitive, and infallible."

Why aren't they all infallible? Is there some uncertainty about their truth? What are the uncertainties? Can they be resolved?

A useful book might be a listing of all teachings neatly labeled according to the above with sanctions clearly indicated for not accepting each type of teaching fully as if it were infallible even if it is not infallible. It may seem childish but people need to know precisely what they have to believe and what is optional and what is in between.

[Peter Nixon]

But first let me state that the category “non-infallible teaching” is not found – to my knowledge – in any official document of the Church. It usually is found in the articles of . . . how shall we say it? clever dissenters of undeniably good will and charm. The categories used to describe teachings are: solemn, authentic, extraordinary, ordinary, definitive, and infallible. The “charism of infallibility”, dixit JP II on 9/15/87 in Los Angeles, is normally to be found in the ordinary exercise of the authentic Magisterium.

Hmmm...okay, this (in brief form) is my understanding of how magisterial teaching works, which stands in certain tension with Fr. Frank's formulation.

Theologians generally make a distinction between final or definitive judgments of the magisterium--which are regarded as irreformable--and those that do not have this status. The Code of Canon Law (Sec. 749 § 3) states that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such." Such a definition can be made by the Pope acting alone (subject to the conditions enumerated at Vatican I) or by the Bishops and Pope acting together in council. In either case, this is said to be an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.

There is a distinction between the extraordinary magisterium and the ordinary efforts of the Pope and bishops (e.g. preaching, encyclicals, etc.) to teach the faith which are known as the ordinary magisterium. In general--and this goes to Fr. Frank's last point--the teaching of the ordinary magisterium is not considered infallible. The exception to this is a teaching that has been taught consistently and unanimously by all bishops throughout the history of the Church, even if it has not been the subject of a formal definition.

Now this is not a license to say "well, it's not infallible, so I can believe what I like." But there is a distinction between the kind of assent that is required. Doctrines that are considered divinely revealed dogmas require an assent of faith. Those that do not fall into this category require what is known (in English) as a "religious assent of mind and will."

Now failing to offer the latter kind of assent may be a sin, but it is not a heresy, which is defined as the "persistent denial of a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith." So calling those who question teachings that fall into this category heretics is incorrect (and I'm not saying that Fr. Frank does this, but some folks in the comboxes do).

More to the point, it is not illegitimate for theologians, in the exercise of their craft, to 1) call attention to the above distinctions and their potential implications for pastoral care; 2) raise questions about a particular teaching of the magisterium so that the underlying truth that is being taught may be separated from a particular mode of expression; 3) probe new lines of theological inquiry that are generated by new dogmatic definitions.

Readers interested in examining these issues in greater depth might grab a copy of Avery Dulles' A Church to Believe In, particularly the chapter on infallibility. Last time I checked, few considered the good Cardinal a "clever dissenter," although he certainly possesses "goodwill and charm."

God bless,

[Old Zhou]

continuing....

So, in the parishes around my home, the emphasis of "What it means to be Catholic" is:
(1) a minimal set of sacramental requirements, and
(2) corporal works of mercy.

Nobody wants to read a Papal encyclical,
or discuss the actual documents of Vatican II.
Nobody wants to see the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" or read "Theology of the Body."

The general concensus in the pews is that Rome is clueless, most of the hierarchy is inept if not evil, and so the "mature" Catholic life is built upon Matthew 25:31-40

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

So, as long as we are feeding the hungry, visiting those in prison, caring for the sick, and doing so many, many, many corporal works of mercy, who cares what Rome teaches? "Forget about the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops. Those Vatican documents are all about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! Better to join with other Christians in interfaith social works. That is the way to be pleasing to God."

[Donald R. McClarey]

"Forget about the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops. Those Vatican documents are all about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! Better to join with other Christians in interfaith social works. That is the way to be pleasing to God."

I'd say, Old Zhou, that laity and clerics with that type of attitude are on their way out of the Church. Next stop: the Episcopalian anarchy, or, if that is too "ritualistic", the Unitarian-Universalists!

[Old Zhou]

No, Donald, I'm afraid they are not going anywhere. They insist that they are really the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of how misguided the Pope and his cronies might be! Jesus is all about loving God and your neighbor, right?

[Caroline]

I understand and agree with what you are getting at Old Zhou, but unfortunately the corporal works of mercy scene is the only picture of the Last Judgment which the NT gives us. And I think the Lord made it that way for a reason. A mentally handicapped person who could never even recite the creed, could still do a corporal act of mercy. The corporal acts will always be the bottom line and it may well be that re-cathecizing is going to have to come from the bottom up if only because there is too much confusion at the top for re-evangelization to come from that direction.

[Donna V.]

I, too, agree with David Morrison and Old Zhou about this. And there's even basic disagreement about what constitutes corporal works of mercy. Yes, Catholics should donate time and money to food pantries, St. Vincent de Paul and so forth. But for some, "corporal works of mercy" means automatically agreeing that tax increases and expanded government social welfare programs are great things, while others see many of those programs as frequently (if inadvertently) harming the poor as much as helping them.

Just like there are people who focus on "love" and forget "go and sin no more." And, at the opposite extreme, people who are so focused on sins and so afraid of falling into wimpy permissiveness, that they forget about charity. I've fallen into both camps from time to time. It is very, very difficult to know where to strike a balance here.

[Dave]

John & Everyone:
There are some excellent points in these posts. I love a good scholarly debate. However, it appears to me we often don't see the trees for the forest. I refer everyone to the article I wrote today in my Catholicreport.org site where elected officials in Ohio (unknowingly I am sure) repeated age old Catholic stereotypes in front of the assembled press and no media outlet reported on it.

Sometimes in our parishes, groups, blogs etc we may miss the events of the day. The tone of anti-Catholicism on the net is somewhat frightening. Surf the net and you will see what I mean. We need to circle the wagons and find ways to unite. As I mentioned in my article "The Tide Is Turning Towards Catholicism" the hate coming at us, often from self described "intellectuals" can serve as a rallying cry. Unfortunately, sometime we focus our energies on debate and scholarly pursuits while avoiding the real "action." We end up being McClellan's instead of Sherman's or Grants (no offense meant to our southern friends.) Amy's "action" against the old whole DaVinci Code nonsense is to be commended. We need to continue what she has started.

I propose each and every one of us find some other falsehood that is being rammed down our throat and take it on. It doesn't have to be a full fledged attack perhaps just a scholarly Apologetics type debate with some outside force that is damaging the Church and what it stands for. There are some great minds that post here. Each person probably has some cause they feel particularly strong about and some particular knowledge or skill set that could aid that cause. By serving and defending the Church in our own particular way, we will have inadvertently found a way to come together.

[SiliconValleySteve]

Zhou,

I don't know if this is off your point or not but living in the Bay Area I'm well aware of the folks you're talking about. In my experience they aren't going anywhere but they aren't leaving another generation for the church either. The kids just look at the thin gruel of "faith" (which is more like an old habit) that holds their parents in the church and say: "why bother?" The parents don't have an answer.

Cardinal George addressed this to a Commonweal audience and they didn't have any real answer to him.

[Anita]

So, in the parishes around my home, the emphasis of "What it means to be Catholic" is:
(1) a minimal set of sacramental requirements, and
(2) corporal works of mercy.

And your disagreement with the corporal works of mercy would be what again?

Old Zhou, your own parish would be what exactly? Name, please.

And you are involved in the life of that parish how exactly?

(I live in your parish, and I know what you look like.)

[Bellarmino]

Going back to what Floyd Ferguson said earlier about "Angry Catholics," I must admit this is something that has always troubled me about the Catholic presence on the internet. Were one of my Bay Area neighbors to start searching, in an informal sort of way as a prelude to stating their interest in conversion, the Catholicism they would meet on the internet would look NOTHING like Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II. Why would such a person want to join an institution whose public face (at least online) is represented by so many uncharitable voices?

Yes, yes, "Benedict wants a smaller Church." Problem is, Benedict has said NOTHING of the sort since he became pontiff, and in fact appointed our archbishop here in San Fran to be prefect of the CDF!

Who's heterodox? Maybe you are. I'll tell you this much, though--it matters not a whit to those whom Christ called us to convert to the Gospel.

[Old Zhou]

Hi Anita, whoever you are.

I don't have any problem at all with corporal works of mercy.

My point is that those who want to start their discussion of Catholic re-unification with "the Creed" or "what the Church teaches" are probably not going to get very far in dialogue with these folks. You can't have a dialogue with people who aren't interested in what you are talking about, be it Humanae Vitae or Ecclesia Eucharistica.

Hey, send me email with the name of my parish!

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

And with Anita's comment, another combox discussion devolves into innuendo, ad hominem, and thinly-veiled intimidation.

It seems to be inevitable once the comment count approaches 100.

[SiliconValleySteve]

Bellarmino,

If one of your neighbors in the bay area were to attend many of the parishes in the bay area or one of the jesuit institutions there they would find it difficult to believe that they were in the same church as JPII and BXVI. Also, the oft quoted comment by Cardinal Ratzinger from Salt of the Earth is misrepresented in most cases. Give it a read and I think you will see what I mean.

By the way, Archbishop Levada had his supporters and detractors among the folks here but it was hardly a uniform opinion. He did after all ban Dignity from church buildings in SF and supported pro-life activities which doesn't go over too well with many folks in the area.

[Marion (Mael Muire)]

Old Zhou wrote: "Jesus is all about loving God and your neighbor, right?"

Yes! And the teachings of the Church help us participate with Jesus as He slowly transforms us into His followers - followers about whom He can say, "they will know you by your love for one another."

Is that how we are? Is that how our parishes are? Is that how our country is?

In Communist countries, the people are fed and housed and their medical needs attended to. And if there is a demonstration in the neighborhood, it is put down with utmost brutality "for the good of the people". And women are forced to abort their second baby "for the good of the people".

So? Is this what "love" looks like? Is this what Jesus teaches? Is this what He is about? Food, clothing, shelter . . . And away with truth, with freedom, with life itself?

Didn't Jesus also say, "Man does not live by bread alone"?

"Man does not live by bread

[Old Zhou]

Don't worry folks, "Anita," with invalid hotmail address, did send me an email.
She is an old friend and neighbor.
We did have lunch together recently, so she not only saw my face, but saw me stuffing dim sum into it!
She did, however, incorrectly guess my parish.

[Old Zhou]

Just in case anybody else wants to claim, "and I know what you look like," this is what I looked like, ca. 1965.
Do the math.

[Jimmy Mac]

We all are well advised to remember this:

" How much I must criticize you, my church, and yet how much I love you. You have made me suffer more than anyone, and yet I owe you more than I owe anyone. I should like to see you destroyed and yet I need your presence. You have made me understand holiness. Never in the world have I seen anything more obscurantist, more compromised, more false, yet never have I touched anything more pure, more generous or more beautiful. Countless time I have felt like slamming the door of my soul in your face - and yet every night I have prayed that I might die in your sure arms. No, I cannot be free of out for I am one with you, even if not completely you. Then, too, where should I go? To build another church? But I cannot build another church without the same defects, for they are my own defects. And again, if I were to build another church, it would be my church, not Christ's church. No, I am old enough to know better. "

Carlo Carretto in his book "I Sought and Found"

How we find the church, how we live in it and how we leave it will be by means of the grace of God and nothing else.

[Jimmy Mac]

Matthew 25: 30-46 is very clear about the value of the Corporal Works of Mercy in the scheme of things.