Somewhere between Ratzinger and Kung
Joel reported yesterday on a recent letter written by Hans Kung addressed as an open letter to Catholic bishops. The letter can be found here in full. As I reflected somewhat on the content of the letter, my first thought was that Hans Kung and our current pope, Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), provide a fairly good illustration for my experience being back in the Catholic Church. It has been my experience that the ordinary Catholic, at least insofar as the ones that I have interacted with in my parish and in my diocese, is somewhere between Ratzinger and Kung.
The media tends to paint a picture of a Church that is completely polarized. At the level of the pew, I simply have not seen it. This could have a great deal to do with my location and the make-up of my parish. In my parish, I’ve only encountered one person that I would consider a genuine liberal. Churches that have priests that are ultra-conservative generally see people attend another parish. I don’t think this is because the people are overly liberal. It is simply that the ultra-conservatism is not where they are either.
When it comes to theological issues, I think that the majority of Catholics are far more pragmatic than anything else. They are not that concerned about priestly celibacy until there is a shortage. If there were enough celibate priests such that churches did not need to be closed, I don’t think that a lot of people would think that much about it. Of course they would from time to time, but it becomes an urgent issue once these matters begin to come up. They are far less concerned about theological issues than they are about their families. The majority of ordinary Catholics are more concerned about knowing how to raise happy, healthy children who stay away from crack and loose living than whether or not the mass is in Latin. Of course we want to know what we believe is true, but in general I find most people more interested in ecumenism than apologetics.
In my experience, back and forth within the hierarchy and within the media usually serves to confuse many ordinary Catholics. It is not that they cannot understand the issues. It is just that in many cases there are mixed messages within the hierarchy itself and within the media. People are unsure who to listen to. And so, I think that many people in the Catholic Church who find themselves somewhere in the middle remain silent. It is not that the church is overly polarized. It is just that the people who are at the polar ends of the spectrum of liberalism and conservatism are more outspoken.
This is just my two cents, not that any of you asked. I’m really not even saying that the people in the middle are right, though I think it’s probably clear from this blog that this is pretty close to where my sympathies lie (even though I am more interested in theology than what I’ve described as the ordinary Catholic). I’m just saying that I’ve not experienced the polarization that many point to. Maybe I am naive and should simply thank God that I live within a good church parish.
Newsweek: Priests unfairly targeted …
An article from NewsWeek has been posted over at The Sacred Page – Newsweek: Priests Unfairly Targeted as Abusers dealing with the scandal of abuse in the Catholic Church. These are things that I have known or thought about before, but for many of the readers of this blog perhaps may not be. Even though I am a Catholic who often wonders whether the Eastern solution concerning priestly celibacy might not work for the Roman Catholic Church, I do not wonder about this because I believe celibacy leads to perversion as some suggest. In fact, I think if you asked any social scientist whether getting married cures pedophilia, they would answer in the negative. This articles deals with a number of these issues by citing that incidents of abuse are no higher among Catholic clergy than among the population as a whole. It may just seem that way for a number of the reasons discussed in the article, not the least of which is the size of the institution. Be sure to click on over and check out the article.
As a postscript, I am not making any comment here on the church’s handling of cases of abuse. Rather I think there is an undue stigma attached to the priesthood now when most of the priests that I know are fantastic servants of Christ
There is more scripture at the Easter Vigil …
than you probably get in many churches in a month. You can check out the readings for Easter here. The Easter vigil is probably my favorite mass of the year as it is for many people. Unfortunately, we’ll be unable to attend this year. In our parish it is from 8-11pm (or round about), which would be rough on the kids (so much so that my wife and I probably would miss most of the service). However, I think by next Easter the girls may be getting old enough … or maybe not …
On Seeing Members of My Former Denomination
If you are a consistent reader of my blog, you may know a little of my background. I grew up Roman Catholic. Long story short … I left the church a year after I started college. I joined a Southern Baptist Church and soon after left a path that was going to lead me to medical school to become a psychiatrist (granted that is if I got into med school). I became a Southern Baptist minister, lay at first and eventually ordained. Computers have made my memory poor, but I believe I remained in SBC churches for 6 or 7 years.
I returned to Roman Catholicism back in 2006 for a variety of reasons. I sometimes get questions as to what the main thing that lead me back was, and my typical answer is that is never just one thing. Some of my reasons were ones that I would consider to be intellectual; however, some issues were more mixed with emotion. This is not really my point here. It is just that when I returned to the Roman Catholic Church I expected that it would be problematic for many people.
Over the last 3 or 4 years I have found that people don’t really care all that much or at least not enough to ask me about my decision. I have seen a number of members of churches where I once ministered, three within the last half a week or so to be exact. And, the fact that I am now Catholic doesn’t really seem to make any difference whatsoever to them. For all of the talk in the churches where I ministered about Catholics believing that salvation is through works and thus are set to perish for all eternity (at least by some very vocal people), most people really don’t seem to care all that much.
I think that there are probably two things going on. For the most part, I simply don’t think that most people that were in the churches where I ministered buy into the idea that Catholics believe salvation is by works and are thus set to perish for all eternity. And, this is for very good reason since that is a caricature of what Catholics actually believe. The second thing that I think is at work is that many people in the congregations that I was in are comfortable talking about Roman Catholicism, just not with a Roman Catholic (especially one that was trained at a Southern Baptist seminary and probably knows a lot more about their own beliefs than they themselves do).
In the 3 or 4 years since I have left evangelical Protestant life, I’ve probably only had conversations with two or three people (tops) that have in any way taken issue with my decision. Not that I’m complaining. It’s somewhat heartening to find that people do not feel you’re in league with the devil. It’s just not what I expected.
“Bible Alone” – I Ain’t No Ox Moron
Doug Chaplin has written a post asking whether “Bible Alone” is an oxymoron. For my title, I couldn’t resist. It is one of my favorite lines from the movie Renaissance Man when he is trying to teach his students about oxymoron. Check it out:
Anyway, I agree with Doug. I know … surprise, surprise (I am Catholic after all). I think that “Bible Alone” is a bit of an oxymoron; however, I do think that some Protestants do feel the weight of this and try to deal with it. And, I also do not think that a Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican theology saves one from the circular reasoning that seems apparent (at least to me in the concept of Bible alone). For more on that you can see HERE an example of what I mean on the related issue of the canon. Anyway, click on over to Doug’s post and let him know what you think.
Related:
Jesus, Mary, and Joel Watts
Okay that title is a little misleading, but I couldn’t resist. Yesterday, a secondary writer on Joel’s blog posted about attending mass on the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes (Check the comments – I think Joel might agree with what I’m saying here). Unfortunately, he appears to have gotten a poor sampling of Catholic beliefs about Mary. For many (I don’t say most because a significant number probably do not even care to think about things like this) Catholics, Christ is the starting point for everything that we believe about Mary, but for some Mary is as central and thus as problematic as Protestants claim.
Yet I did want to give a counter-perspective from someone who has been on both sides of the divide (I grew up Catholic, left for a while and have now returned … I guess the technical term for me is revert). Having been on both sides I would say that on the other end of the spectrum many Protestants, at least within the groups that I was a part, were so anti-Catholic in their perspective that Mary received virtually no attention at all. If she was shown even an the least amount of respect other than simply as a halfway decent person, it probably would have made some uneasy. I don’t think this is ideal either.
I guess the point that I am trying to make though is that there are always people on the fringes of a group. And, it is easy enough to look at those fringes and think that everyone in the other group thinks that way. But, I do not think that is a way forward. There are many Catholics who take a much more nuanced view of Mary. There are many Protestants who take a much more respectful and nuanced view of Mary. It is this way with any number of issues. So, we must be careful in whatever area we are studying not to take the fringe for the middle.
[For an example of Protestants and Catholics studying Mary together you might check out Mary in the New Testament.]
Related:
Roman Catholic Understanding of Faith (QOD)
Here is a quote of the day from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is in response to the question of how Roman Catholics define faith, which I get from time to time:
Faith is a personal act – the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.
Related:
Roman Catholic Views of Inerrancy
As per a brief discussion that I had with John Hobbins in the comments section of his blog, I have decided to try to write something a bit more substantial on the topic of inerrancy, particularly from a Catholic perspective. The discussion that John and I had turned on the fact that some have claimed that there is a certain amount of “wiggle room” (I prefer the term latitude) in modern Catholic teaching on inerrancy while others would deny this latitude. Readers of my blog or those who may have already taken the time to click over to John’s post to read the comments will be familiar with my thoughts on the topic. But, just to keep things simple from the outset, I’ll restate. Some people would consider me an inerrantist and others not based on their definitions of the term “inerrancy.” But, in the end, it really doesn’t matter to me all that much because most definitions of inerrancy are unintelligible to an ordinary person and are so nuanced as to be virtually meaningless (e.g. only the original manuscripts?). I like John’s phraseology better: They die the death of a thousand qualifications. Regardless of my views on the topic, much of the debate within Roman Catholicism turns on the statements on scripture made at Vatican II and the infamous for the sake of our salvation clause (see 107). (There is also some discussion about the “that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm” portion, as in not everything they write is an affirmation – 107 as well.) The contention made by some is that the teaching on scripture at Vatican II and this clause in particular provide some latitude by limiting the inerrancy of scripture to teachings concerning faith and morals. They further look to the present practices of the Church as confirmation of this latitude. For instance, they cite the appointment by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Biblical Commission of a number of scholars who have held to this looser conception of inerrancy. One example of this practice would be the appointment of Raymond Brown (you may see #6 here to see how I feel about him). In addition, they would point out that many writings by such scholars have met with nihil obstat. Conversely, there are others that say that this clause and the statements about scripture in general at Vatican II must be interpreted in their context, which they claim teaches inerrancy more clearly, and within the teaching of the whole Tradition of the church, which they claim also teaches inerrancy more clearly. These theologians and scholars would probably cite some of the statements by Pope Leo XII in Providentissimus Deus as well as previous pontiffs and probably some of the Church Fathers. The litany of texts that are put forward is fairly substantial. As Protestants do, these scholars also include the statements that scripture makes about itself (e.g. 2 Timothy 3.16), even though most acknowledge the circularity here (i.e. scripture is inerrant because scripture says it is inerrant). This side would also deny that the Pontifical Biblical Commission has any authority and thus deny that this line of evidence really even matters. I realize that this is a gross oversimplification of the matter, but hopefully everyone gets the idea (This is, in fact, a blog post and not an article or monograph). There is some debate among Roman Catholics concerning teaching on inerrancy. And hopefully, this gives some of the terms of the debate. So, what is one to make of this? Well, concerning the issue of inerrancy, I can only recommend that individuals read further and make determinations on their own. I wouldn’t want to thrust my (admittedly pessimistic) view on anyone. For this, I would recommend two texts, one entitled The Scripture Documents and another entitled The Critical Meaning of the Bible. The first will give one an idea of the Traditional statements by the Church on the nature of scripture as well as the more current ones by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whereas the other will state fairly clearly the first view in question in the debate. Decide for yourself if the more modern view is a continuation of the genuine development of Church teaching on scripture or if it is a new aberration. Beyond that, I think that this debate can serve to demonstrate that within the Catholic Church those on two sides of a debate can coexist. Frankly, I don’t think lay people care all that much about this particular issue (at least not the ones I work with on a day-to-day basis), though if all you read was internet discussions one might get the impression that they care much more than they do. Yet there are any number of divisive issues within Roman Catholicism. But, day-by-day and week-by-week within my own parish I see people who vehemently disagree with one another on a number of issues set those differences aside to celebrate the Eucharist and to unite in the name of justice. Does it always work perfectly like this in every parish? Has it always worked perfectly like this in the history of the Church? Of course not. I tend to think that I am very fortunate to have found my way into an excellent parish. But, it does happen. We as Catholics can and have practiced unity amid diversity.
An “Orthodox Catholic”? What’s That?
Michael Bird has written what I think is a mostly helpful post about, among other matters, diversity of theological opinion among both Catholics and Protestants alike. The post is in reaction to those who would pit theological disagreements as Rome (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) against Geneva (i.e. the Reformers), as if these two were monoliths and as if no other options are available (i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy). I applaud this part of the post and believe that the point is well spoken and much needed.
However, I think that at the end of the post he slips into what we all do at times. He states “I can honestly say that I’d rather worship and pray with an Orthodox Catholic than with a Liberal Protestant.” The ability to make such statements would seem to me somewhat diminished by the discussion of diversity which precedes it. In other words who is an “Orthodox Catholic” (As an example from Bird’s discussion, someone who follows Fitzmeyer or someone who follows Trent)? I have served in a Catholic Church for some time now and have still not figured that out. And, I would say that if Bird takes his own comments about diversity seriously, he would probably not want to pray with many Catholics (at least that I know) who consider themselves “orthodox” since they would insist on including some of the practices he questions at the end of the post as a witness to their Catholic faith in the sight of Protestant dissenters.
It seems that all the talk of diversity is not very compatible with the Orthodox-Unorthodox (for which “liberal” is often a substitute) labels that we tend to use. I personally am not sure how to best solve the problem of terminology that places people into categories like this but still seeks to recognize the possibility of diversity. I tend to like to view matters as a sliding scale, rather than categories. Yet this way of looking at matters is not very conducive to normal discourse. “I would rather worship with a Catholic who is somewhere around the middle of the sliding scale of what one can believe and be considered Catholic.” That does not work so well. So, I guess until someone comes up with something better, we will continue to talk about the diversity of theological opinion that is acceptable but continue to use terms that are not so well fitted for handling that diversity.
If you are interested in reading more about current relations between Catholics and Protestants from an Evangelical perspective, one of the best books I can recommend is:
Anglicans becoming Catholic – We’ll Have to Wait and See
Thanks to John Hobbins for pointing out this article from the New York Times on the recent invitation for Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church. I think the author, Rachel Donadio, hits the nail on the head. The effects of this move are going to be long lasting and it is far too early to tell what exactly those effects will be. On the one hand, this has been a reaching out to the more conservative elements within Anglicanism. On the other hand, it brings to the fore (not that they have ever really gone away) discussions of celibacy, which are of great significance to the more liberal elements of Roman Catholicism. So, this should get interesting.
More thoughts on this later …