“The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts”
Unity, not uniformity!
What does it mean to be “One Catholic and Apostolic Church”? In particular, what does it mean to be ‘One’?
As one universal community of faith, members of the Catholic Church share a belief in certain tenets of the faith. These include everything in the Nicean Creed along with any dogmatic pronouncements such as the virgin birth or Theotokos. We don’t agree on everything though…not by a long shot.
I spoke with someone recently who had been led to believe that to be Catholic meant to agree with every Church teaching. I don’t think I do…Infact I don’t know many who do, priests included. I’m sure there are countless throngs of you out there in computerland, shouting at your screens right now…wondering what sort of heretic I am exactly. Then there are others wondering why I feel the need to even bring up this topic….everyone knows we don’t all agree…right?
One of the most beautiful things about the Catholic Church is its unity in diversity. Some of us believe that sex before marriage is an absolute no-no while others see sex without love as the key issue. Some see this as central while others, peripheral. Some see certain forms of contraception as ok while others see all as sinful. Some of us view the Church as one of the poor while others prefer to view it as an all-encompassing one.
My point is this, that even though our emphases may differ we are all united in our Nicean Creed and certain core teachings such as that on abortion or others of social theology. We are united by our love of Christ and His teachings. We are united by our recognition of the primacy of the Holy Father and of the special place reserved for the Virgin Mary (Theotokos).
St. Paul writes: “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body.” So it is that we, though many, are united in this body of Christ, this Church of Christ….that our views, focuses etc., though many are united therein.
The extraordinarily beautiful reality here is what Paul goes on to recognise: “So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.”
If not for this Spirit we would surely be squabbling hordes but instead we are united in love. Once again (and not for the last time!) I’ll call upon St. John’s “God is Love”. Through baptism in the Spirit we are united in God. A true Church of Christ.
Monday, August 18th, 2008 and is filed under The Church.
Responses are currently closed
Ann Says:
The thing that brought what you are saying here home to me, Ronan, with considerable impact, was the scene in St Peter’s Square, which we all saw on our televisions at the time of the requiem mass for Pope John Paul – those of us who weren’t there that is!
Up until then I had a vague notion that there were other rites forming part of the one body, but the honoured place that eg. Orthodox leaders( I’m still not entirely sure who was represented) were given that day and their participation in the liturgy highlighted for me the truth of it all – that there is far more that unites than divides and there is an honoured place waiting for each of us who ‘ through baptism in the Spirit are united in God. A true Church of Christ.’ And I agree wholeheartedly that one of the beauties of Catholic Church is its unity in diversity.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Lmaher Says:
Ronan wrote that somebody suggested that “…be(ing) Catholic mean(s) … agree(ing) with every Church teaching.”
Certainly assent to Church teaching and “religious submission of mind and will” is part of the teaching of Vatican II (LG).
Fortunately, in most cases involving a lack of assent, we are dealing with incredulity not heresy. A brief survey of the Catholic Catechism is instructive in pointing out that “incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it whereas heresy is “… the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine or catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” (2089).
It seems to me that incredulity would apply to those some call “cafeteria Catholics” but heresy would apply to more serious cases. Obstinacy seems to be part of the distinction.
Ronan went on to say that he does not know many, not even many priests, who agree with all Church teachings. That suggests to me that most Catholics he knows and most clerics who minister to him are among the incredulous mentioned in Catechism #2089.
In my mind Ronan’s comment says something unfortunate about the state of the Church and the condition of the clergy in some areas. The same can be said about some religious communities. Is it possible for a cleric to move from incredulity to heresy? Of course. Is it a terrible scandal when a cleric or religious declares his (or her) unbelief or refusal to assent to Church teaching to the people – always.
Ronan gives examples of teachings that unite all Catholics including the “theotokos” and the primacy of the pope. Later, however, he indicates that Catholics have different views about fornication and contraception. Question: how does one grant primacy to the pope as taught in Vatican II(see Lumen gentium chapter III 23) while also rejecting papal teaching on contraception or fornication? It seems to me that a cleric (who cannot be included among the invincibly ignorant) who rejects Church teaching on contraception/fornication logically also rejects papal primacy and, therefore, also rejects Lumen gentium (III) 23 and by definition also rejects Vatican II. All things are connected.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Ronan Says:
Lmaher,
I agree with your point that “religious submission of mind and will” is part of the teaching of Vatican II but this statement from Lumen Gentium goes on to add
“in such a way that his (the Pope’s) supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence”. I’ll come back to that.
To begin with I would suggest that the work of the council fathers is in the form of sixteen documents and so to “reject” one section of one document does not necessarily constitute a rejection of Vatican II. Before you get any ideas, I don’t reject Lumen Gentium or the chosen quote but I would not read it in a vacuum.
Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle: in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.
Is it a terrible scandal when a cleric or religious teaches the people to think…,to discern and to process Church teaching instead of blind submission, instead of disregarding the development of their relationship with God which can come from such discernment..? – Never!
Does all Church teaching carry the same weight?..Does membership of the community of faith we call ‘the Church’ balance on a shared view on every point the magisterium has ever considered? – Certainly not!
Every discerning Catholic and priest I know agrees wholeheartedly with the Church’s theology. Few agree wholeheartedly with every teaching. We must recognise that while this Church of ours is the Church of Christ it is also the Church of man. Our understanding of theology develops. So too does our expression of it.
Lest we forget I’ll mention the obvious:
“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.” Pope Nicholas V (Dum Diversas)
I might add here that paragraph 3 above is a quote from our current Pope Benedict XVI, commenting on the doctrine of Vatican II. (Just thought I should mention that!)
The Holy Father makes a good point, as the saintly Cardinal Newman.
As I mentioned earlier the reference from Lumen Gentium demands that the Pope’s “supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence”. To truly way up the Pope’s “supreme magisterium” but find that your conscience dictates otherwise is surely Church teaching.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
mary Says:
I lkie that and its good for someone to acknowledge that we all have different things we haveproblems with
What about Confession How do you deal with that?
August 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Ronan Says:
What do you mean?
August 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Lmaher Says:
Ronan,
Thanks for your thoughts and for the discussion. Consider these thoughts from a late pope and a saintly priest:
“It has always been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatable with being a “good Catholic” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacrements. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the Bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” – Pope John Paul II to US Bishops 1987, or
A Catholic “who set out following a doubt which has occered to him: I have not to warn him against losing his faith, he is not merely in danger of losing it, he has lost it; from the nature of the case he has lost it: he fell from grace at the moment when he deliberately entertained and pursued his doubt.” Ven. John H. Newman (Discourse 11 Faith & Doubt).
The former Cardinal Ratzinger always speaks of a properly formed conscience and the problems associated with the subjective reflections of each individual. He points us to the CCC which warns about “… the education of conscience (being) indispensable for human beings (because we) are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer (our) own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.”
Forming our conscience can be tricky. Some consciences are improperly formed by lack of information, some by misinformation from inadequate or incorrect catechesis, and some by deliberate choice to disregard certain doctrines because they are difficult to accept and follow. Imagine the conundrum the Catholic layman is in re. birth control if his priest confessor dissents in that area. That pastor should consider whether he can justly substitute his own authority for that of the Church.
It is important to read all the council’s documents together and to recognize their connections. I cannot agree with the suggestion that “rejecting” one or two portions of Vatican II does not also imply rejecting the council. It indicates rejection of the council because the same Holy Spirit revealed in one’s favorite portions of V2 breathes in the less favored portions. In fact, disfavoring portions of V2 looks like the definition of “cafeteria Catholicism”.
Lastly, the quote from Pope Nicholas seems to be a non sequitur to me because the Church has always distinguished between historic slavery, slaves taken as prisoners of war, and chattel slavery. Recall that this bull was issued the year before the fall of Constantinople during a period of crusade. Changing theological expressions do not reduce the indefectibility of the Church in my view.
Ronan said “Lumen Gentium demands that the Pope’s “supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence” – ok – but recall that the sentence just prior calls us to “sincere assent” and the same sentence you quote from calls us to religious submission of mind and will” to decisions made by him (the pope’s magisterium), in conformity to his manifest mind and intention”. Taking “reverence” apart from “submission of mind and will” when these terms are part of a single sentence seems selective to me.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Ronan Says:
Lmaher,
I’ll begin with your final point: my “selective” quotations. In my first paragraph I quote from Lumen Gentium: “religious submission of mind and will in such a way that his (the Pope’s) supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence”. This is not quite as selective as you suggested. I think you must have selected my final paragraph seperate from the first…but I’ll move on.
You point out that the “former Cardinal Ratzinger always speaks of a properly formed conscience and the problems associated with the subjective reflections of each individual”. I agree. He does. You go on to add that he particularly highlights the CCC’s statement that “the education of conscience (is) indispensable for human beings are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.”
I sincerely doubt that the Pope’s fears translate into the suggestion that one should blindly follow the Church disregarding one’s own conscience which is our link with God.
Benedict’s fear it seems is as he puts it: “the subjective conscience”, “the subjective conscience which knows no other authority. In the end, the subject alone decides, with his feelings and experience, on the possible criteria he has discovered. Yet, in this way the subject becomes an isolated reality and, as you said, the parameters change from one day to the next.”
Benedict (and Cardinal Ratzinger) has on several occasions stressed the importance of an ‘informed conscience’. In his own words: “In the Christian tradition, “conscience”, “con-scientia”, means “with knowledge”: that is, ourselves, our being is open and can listen to the voice of being itself, the voice of God. Thus, the voice of the great values is engraved in our being and the greatness of the human being is precisely that he is not closed in on himself, he is not reduced to the material, something quantifiable, but possesses an inner openness to the essentials and has the possibility of listening. In the depths of our being, not only can we listen to the needs of the moment, to material needs, but we can also hear the voice of the Creator himself and thus discern what is good and what is bad. Of course, this capacity for listening must be taught and encouraged.”
Even the Pope’s magisterium it seems suggest that one’s true conscience is the voice of God, “voice of the Creator himself”.
Our current Pope goes on to add:
“And we see that it is only with full respect for this creature of God, this image of God which man is, and with respect for our coexistence on this earth, that we can develop.” This chance to develop in our love of God is central to what it means to be a part of a vibrant faith community such as the Church.
And for those of you out there who see our common consciences as not quite up to the task our Holy Father once again comes to the rescue: “the lay conscience can easily discern.” and continues to stress the Church’s role “We should therefore seek to guide people to the deepest voices, to the true voice of the conscience that is communicated through the great tradition of prayer, of the moral life of the Church. Thus, in a process of patient education, I think we can all learn to live and to find true life.”
I apologise for my lack of a reply here but I feel the Holy Father’s is quite apt.
Before I end I would like to add that your suggestion that the impact of Pope Nicholas’ view on slavery is any less because it refers to historic slavery is, in my opinion, quite offensive to all those of good conscience. He suggests “perpetual slavery” as a correct response to the threat of “unbelievers”. I agree that these “changing theological expressions” do not reduce the indefectibility of the Church but recognise that these “changing theological expressions accompany changing theological interpretations.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:21 am
Lmaher Says:
Historic contingencies matter and should be part of this kind of conversation. Historic slavery is different than modern chattel slavery or racial slavery & the distinction is not always made clear in these discussions.
Historic slavery is the slavery that continued to flourish during and after the biblical period. In ancient times, slavery was seen as justly arising from one of three circumstances: (1) capture in war, (2) punishment for crime, and (3) obligation for debt. Pope Nicholas is addressing the former case. Humane slavery was a superior option to the suicidal release of prisoners of war, the economic impossibility of simply imprisoning war captives, or the terribly inhumane alternative of executing captured enemies. The change of the Church’s attitude toward slavery reflects the changed circumstances of the world more than it reflects any revolution in moral theology. Wars tend to be of shorter duration in the modern world (though often of far greater severity) and nations often possess surpluses out of which they can feed and care for prisoners of war who are held as prisoners rather than as slaves as would have been the case in previous times.
We seem to agree about the importance of having a correctly formed conscience and seem to understand that a poorly informed conscience can lead one astray. The problem develops when clerics dissent from Church teaching and contribute to the formation of poor consciences among junior clergy, religious, or the laity.
I can recall an elderly Sister of Loretto who, upon returning from a conference, could no longer agree to the BVM’s perpetual virginity. She shared her incredulity with her young students. How did a women who became a member of a religious institute devoted to the BVM who was well schooled in the religious life and the rule of her congregation come to doubt this matter of faith? Might if have happened because a respected cleric shared his incredulity with her? Why would she feel compelled to share this incredulity with her class? Did her conscience compel her to do this? How do these expressions of doubt or incredulity respect the “obsequium religiosum” of Vatican II (LG # 25).
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Ronan Says:
Lmaher,
I don’t understand why you insist on defining the form of slavery. Pope Nicholas encouraged “perpetual slavery”. This is nothing short of the dehumanisation and objectification of men, women and children. You also suggest that “The change of the Church’s attitude toward slavery reflects the changed circumstances of the world more than it reflects any revolution in moral theology.” It is impossible to remove the Church’s theology from this as such a stance is the outward expression of their theology as the opposite stance is today.
St. John describes his converts as “not of the world” – words which he also uses to descibe himself. (Jn.17:14) If your Church’s theology is bound by the views and worries of society then it’s not mine. When society deems such acts as euthanasia and abortion moral we, as a Church, respond that God’s law is beyond the whims of a particular age. Therefore this defense seems hollow. The reality that we must accept is that the Church’s stance changed and so its theological emphases changed. In the middle ages the magisterium was quite selective with it’s interpretation of God’s word.
I agree that a cleric teaching opposition to a dogma of the Church is wrong but I would suggest that a cleric who’s conscience dictates dissention from official teaching on a non-dogmatic issue is perfectly justified in exploring the issue with mature students of faith – as long as the official stance is central to the discussion and is given the respect due to the teachings of the magisterium.
In the case of a cleric who’s conscience does contradict Church dogma they are bound by their conscience, before God, not to teach such views as a Catholic before Catholics and/or to leave the Church.
One’s conscience is God’s voice in us and when properly discerned should always take precedence.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
LMaher Says:
The definition of terms is important in any discussion. Slavery appeared in different forms at different times. You’ve not addressed the fact that humane slavery was a superior option to the suicidal release of prisoners of war during the period under discussion. You’ve seemingly not considered the contingencies involved including the economic impossibility of simply imprisoning war captives at that time or the terribly inhumane alternative of executing captured enemies. Pope Nicholas was aware of these contingencies.
Contingencies do matter. For example – usury became less of an issue when the function of money changed-that is when money could fructify.
I cannot imagine how a cleric or religious would be justified in burdening “mature students of faith” with his doubts – especially if he functions in the role of an instructor to those “mature students of faith”. (I also wonder how mature students of faith are identified in any objective way and whether they are immune to religious scandal)?
“Respect” for “official Church positions” is not enough because Vatican II calls us to “obsequium religiosum”. That is why I pointed out that a foundational principle in the culture of dissent is a rejection of Vatican II’s teaching in LG 25.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Ronan Says:
Lmaher,
I agree that slavery is better than what you call “the suicidal release of prisoners of war” but this isn’t that simple. Pope Nicholas encouraged Catholics to “invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be…to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery”. Perpetual slavery.
I can’t believe we’re even discussing this!
You defend Pope Nicholas by pointing towards economic circumstances. Are you putting a price on human dignity. The loss of human dignity is almost on par with the loss of life as he suggested reducing them to the status of animals…human life is thus lost.
Can we finish this line of discussion please because it’s absolutely ridiculous to defend such disregard for the sacred in humanity and cruelty by a Pope masquerading as a tyrant or vice-versa.
On a cleric’s teachings:
I accept that the identification of “mature students of faith” could be problematic but a cleric or religious who encourages discussion on matters of faith and identifies their opposing views can only add to a sense of dialogue within the Church. This can only lead to greater vibrancy in this Church of life.
Finally you quote Lumen Gentium again (it must be a favorite) with the words: “obsequium religiosum”. These words are found in a particular context which adds “This (obsequium religiosum) religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff…,in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence”.
If your point was that I should replace the word “respect” with “reverence” then consider it replaced.
September 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm