The Durbin affair was a clear disclosure of the divide within our Church. Cardinal Cupich planned to prominently honor the senator for his work on behalf of immigrants despite his longtime, fervent advocacy of legal abortion. Durbin's bishop Thomas Paprocki was joined by nine in strongly protesting this as a blatant violation of the episcopal policy to not honor pro-abortion leaders. Of the 441 active and retired bishops, none came to the support of Cupich. That makes 2% of our bishops who defended the agreed upon policy. We see that the default of our episcopacy is to avoid conflict.
Durban cannot receive communion in his own parish or diocese of Springfield, but in the Archdiocese of Chicago next door he is feted as a hero. Clearly we are dealing here with two different religions: Catholic Thick and Catholic Lite.
Most significant was the response of Pope Leo. With a candor and transparency more typical of his predecessor, he responded that "if you are against abortion but indifferent to immigrants you are not prolife." This off-the-cuff, non-authoritative response was telling: clearly the deportation of immigrants is more troubling to him than the destruction of the unborn.
It is now clear that Francis and Leo share a theological vision that contrasts sharply with that offered by John Paul and Benedict. Before contrasting the two, lets see what all four popes have in common.
Fervent Evangelical Catholics
Each is a man of prayer, clearly close to the person of Jesus Christ, and zealous in the mission to share this faith with the world. They all love the Church. They are complex personalities who combine aspects that might be considered progressive and conservative.
They differ primarily in their responses to the cultural revolution that swept the West in the 1960s. John Paul and Benedict articulated a clear, strong contradiction of sexual liberalism; Francis and Leo are accommodating and conciliatory, seeking to downplay the conflict. A second difference is that the more recent popes present a political, global agenda as integral to Catholicism. The prior pontiffs do not disagree with the values in this political vision but resist giving them such prominence as they see more clearly the limits of papal competence in political policy and the inevitability of diversity in ideology among Catholics in prudential matters. The two are not in absolute contradiction of each other. As Catholics, we profess allegiance to every pope. But the inconsistencies and incompatibilities, blatant in the Durbin affair and other issues, are evident and require a decision from the thinking Catholic: Which vision do I follow? Most serious thinkers fall into one school or the other: to fail to decide is to remain indecisive, confused and ambivalent.
What follows will consider the heart of each vision, here described as "conjugal mysticism" and "social justice activism," and then highlight major differences.
Conjugal Mysticism
At the very start of his papacy, John Paul presented a long "catechesis on the human body" (later known as "theology of the body") that decisively answered the sexual revolution as it deeply developed Catholic teaching on the human person, body, gender, sexuality, marriage and family. He highlighted masculinity and femininity as God's creation and as mutuality in self-gift between the spouses and together to family and the broader community. In continuity with Catholic tradition, he brought illumination from contemporary thinking, especially phenomenology, to unveil the sacredness of sexuality and marriage. This deeper penetration into the Mystery of sexuality also illuminated the "spousal" nature of Catholic liturgical/sacramental life. Pondering the scriptural/Pauline view of Christ as Bridegroom of the Bridal Church, light was thrown upon the masculine role of the priesthood, the feminine-virginal identity of the Church, the primacy of the Marian over the Petrine dimensions of the Church, the bridal nature of professed virginity and more. With a novel freshness, classic Catholic principles around fidelity to vows and state of life, personal chastity, marital and religious stability were given new life and perspective. This teaching, in my view, was the most significant development in Catholic theology in the 20th century. It is not an abstract philosophy, but practical and concrete, especially inspiring for those of us who struggle with chastity.
Ratzinger-and-then-Benedict worked closely with John Paul so that their teaching can be seen as a unity. He combined brilliance in scholarship, erudition in scripture/tradition, a philosophical personalism similar to John Paul's with an inspired catechetical touch. Theirs can be considered one papacy.
Differences Between John Paul and Benedict
Along with the unity, we can see that two such original thinkers did differ in emphasis on certain matters.
Benedict was more positive and supportive of the Latin Mass which he elevated. He loved that tradition. John Paul, to my knowledge, did not strongly address the issue one way or the other. We know that Leo apparently will continue the repression of the rite begun by Francis.
Ecumenically, John Paul collaborated with the Islamic countries at the UN conferences in Cairo and Bejing to fight the abortion imperialism of American and Western sexual liberalism. He also participated in the Assis ecumenical event which appeared to join Christianity/Judaism/Islam in prayer together.
Benedict was not comfortable with the relaxed theological grounding of that ecumenical event. Additionally, early in his papacy he delivered the (in)famous Regensburg lecture in which he defended the Catholic synthesis of faith and reason as he critiqued the West for a reason without faith and Islam for a faith cut off from reason. This was, in my view, a brilliant presentation which exemplified his theological clarity and depth. But it provoked violence across the globe from Muslim crowds. So we see a difference in their relationship with Islam. It seems obvious that both reacted to real realities in that religion, the bright side and the dark side.
Social Justice Activism
Neither Francis nor Leo intend to change Church teaching on sexuality. Rather, they want to avoid the topic. Early in his pontificate, Leo hosted James Martin S.J., thus continuing his predecessor's close collaboration. Martin does not explicitly contradict Catholic teaching. Rather, he ignores it. He implicitly devalues it. His gay-affirmation crusade intends, of course, to welcome those who feel rejected by the Church. In doing so, he devalues the sacred significance of sexuality, including the gravity of sins against chastity. In effect, he declares the spousal meaning of sexuality (fruitful, exclusive, faithful, free, male/female) as insignificant. In gospel of gay affirmation, homosexual practice is reconfigured from a sin to be confessed to an expression of wholesome affection. This requires, obviously, a resolute avoidance of the evident indignity and pathology of the specific acts. If these acts are benign, then the Church is indeed homophobic, hateful and condemnatory. If they are disordered, than Martin, Francis and Leo are supporting patterns of sin. And so we have the blessing of homosexual unions which affirms the goodness, even of the physical dimension.
The heart of Francis/Leo Catholicism is care for the suffering, the violated, the poor, not just in traditional works of mercy practiced by Mother Theresa and so many saints, but in social policy. They articulate a global, political vision: welcoming of immigrants, green policy for the environment, prohibition of the death penalty, redistribution of wealth. A few years ago Cardinal Joe Tobin of NJ, close friend of both popes, identified Francis as the political protagonist against antagonist Donald Trump.
The problem here is that they swerve out of their lane, as authoritative on faith and morals, and exercise a "clericalism" that presumes authority about complex, prudential matters. Social policy is properly the expertise of political processes and leaders, assisted by scientists, theorists, activists, and others. The basic moral vision is properly the concern of the pope. But when the pope involves with concrete policy (like border walls, etc.) he depletes his authority, polarizes the Church and alienates those who come to different practical conclusions about the best policies to follow.
Difference Between Francis and Leo
Leo has consistently said he will continue the policies of his predecessor. He is man of his word.
But the difference in temperament is startling. Francis was impulsive, indiscrete, intentionally provocative and disruptive. He was viscerally hateful of the Latin Mass, "clericalist" priests, the USA Evangelical-Catholic coalition against abortion, and "rigid" traditionalism.
Leo is restrained, modest, steady, institutional, moderate, and looking to reconcile and stabilize the Church. In the same week he met with Fr. Martin he met with Cardinal Burke and allowed a Latin mass in St. Peter's.
Style has about it already a substance. This is why I have hopes for this papacy. My hope is that he will listen to the voices that Francis repressed; the voices of many devout Catholics; the voices of John Paul, Benedict, Augustine and others. My hope is that he will bring peace to the Church by hearing what is true in the views of those opposed to Francis.
Key Issues of Difference
Chinese Church. While the agreement of the Vatican with the Communist state remains secretive, it is clear that Francis surrendered control of the Church to the government. This contrasts sharply with the war John Paul waged and finally won against Soviet Communism. This will surely rank as the most disastrous, shameful policy of Pope Francis. We wait to see how Leo will proceed.
Sexuality. Francis destroyed the John Paul Institute for the Family in Rome. This had institutionalized the magisterial legacy of John Paul and Benedict. Leo said he will continue the Francis direction. He avoided laying out a theological vision but intends it to be a more practical assist to family life. He shares an anti-intellectualism with Francis: an indifference or aversion to the deep philosophical legacy of that school.
The Latin Mass. Indications are that Leo will continue the repression of this rite. His meeting with Burke and allowance of the rite in St. Peter's signal that he will be less heavy handed and more open to dialogue with that important movement in the Church.
Synodality. Influential participants in Vatican II, John Paul and Benedict understood "synod" to be a gathering of bishops to exercise their apostolic authority. Leo follows Francis' novel contrivance of "synod" as an open, democratic, dialogic process. It is an unprecedented, alternate source of Church authority which includes even those who reject the Catholic legacy. Vulnerable to manipulation by progressive activists, it excludes many voices who are loyal to the Church, including those who avoid it as a big mistake.
Dogmatization of Political Policy. The elevation of leftist, Western ideology into Catholic dogma is best exemplified in the death penalty. Perhaps our widest catechetical error is that "the Church is against the death penalty." John Paul and Benedict both strenuously opposed it for prudential reasons. They argued, for example, that contemporary prisons are so good that we do not need capital punishment to protect society. By this logic, they upheld the traditional teaching that use of lethal force for protection of society is the duty of the state when necessary. They maintained the issue as prudential, about which Catholics can disagree. It is not inherently/always evil (like adultery, abortion, rape) but dependent upon circumstances (like warfare, theft (of bread to feed starving) or lying (to gestapo about Jews in attic.)) They knew the limits of their finite, practical opinion; they realized they had no authority to unilaterally change an ancient teaching. What I know of American prisons makes me skeptical. And I am sure many other countries are worse. Neither they nor Francis consulted with the world's bishops or produced a scholarly, authoritative study considering the classic aims of retribution: deterrence, protection, rehabilitation and retribution. Impulsively, dictatorially Francis ruled the practice as "inadmissible as a violation of the dignity and inviolability of the human person." He presents here a moral intuition that is taken to be self-evident but is not part of our tradition. It is a rupture with a consistent practice. It is supported by no historical legacy, no episcopal consensus, no authoritative argument. Rather, Francis, with most of the secular ("no afterlife") progressive West does not like the thing.
Will Our Unity Hold?
The German Church seems to be moving towards schism. But on the whole, I see no danger of a catastrophic global divide. We have lived with this divide for 60 years. Powerful dynamics, interior to Catholicism, hold us together. The sources of our union are dual: truth and love. The truths in dispute are all hills upon which we are willing to die. But that dedication to truth is infused by, as it infuses, love of the brother and sister. The exigency to witness to truth coexists with the urgency for unity.
Catholic leadership at its best retains a generosity, a tolerance for difference, a reverence even for the adversary. Francis was weak on this: he emotionally attacked those with whom he disagreed. Leo by contrast, from the start, shows a deep intention to maintain unity and listen to all sides. This is a good thing! The response of the American episcopacy to the Durbin controversy also shows this valuation of unity.
Going Forward
The pronounced divide in our Church is not normal. But it is not unusual. Our Church is not a sect, with clearly defined, protective boundaries setting us apart. Rather, we mingle in the broader society; we seek to influence it; but we are also unavoidably influenced by it. And so, a tension between accommodation and resistance is unavoidable.
In the long game, thick, countercultural Catholicism is far more promising than the thinner version, which adapts to the surrounding world. Consider, for example: which is more likely to move our youth to priestly and religious vocations...conjugal mysticism or social justice activism? Clearly, one passionate about the immigrants, global warming or economic inequality will more likely want to be an activist, a politician, a policy expert. Which will draw our young to have large families: the ethos of chastity and fertility or that of contraception and gay-affirmation? The questions answer themselves.
John Paul and Benedict were world class theologians of the calibre of our Church doctors. Their teachings will be forming seminarians and students of theology far into the future. It was a sadness that Francis rejected their vision. We hope that the Catholic intuitions of Leo will overcome the superficial theological heritage he received from his predecessor.
No comments:
Post a Comment