Nine New Commandments: A Short Catechism on the Demands Posed by Radical Catholics
by Russell Shaw
What do "progressive Catholics want? What sort of Church do people on the far left of the ecclesial spectrum hope to bring into being? In fact, activists have repeatedly put their goals on the record. The items that follow are high on the list. Not all "progressive" Catholics would see all of these goals in precisely the same way, but the issues themselves form the central core of their appeal.
I. End mandatory celibacy for priests, and ordain married men.
Progressives say that although celibacy may be a valued discipline, not everyone called to the priesthood is likewise called to be celibate. Insisting on celibacy discourages men from becoming priests, they insist — something the Church can ill afford at a time when the number of priests is dropping.
Making celibacy optional is essential to the progressive program. It is prominent, for instance, among the demands of the We Are Church coalition now seeking the signatures of a million American Catholics. And in his "reform of the papacy" paper, delivered at Oxford last June, Archbishop John R. Quinn, the retired ordinary of San Francisco, placed priestly celibacy on the list of issues which he said had been distorted by authoritarian decision-making by Rome.
II. Ordain women as priests.
For the moment, some of the steam seems to have gone out of the drive toward this goal, as the result of two Vatican documents. Pope John Paul's 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explained that the teaching that the Church cannot ordain women must be "held definitively." The 1995 Responsum by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made it clear that this same teaching has been "set forth infallibly."
It would be naïve to think that progressives have simply accepted what these documents teach. However, the documents do complicate their task of advocacy.
Rather than outright calls for the ordination of women, more common now are challenges to the reasoning presented in the Pope's apostolic letter and / or the statement by Cardinal Ratzinger's Congregation. Some dissidents, such as Hans Kung, attack the Pope's character. (Kung has accused John Paul of "compassionless rigorism.") Others avoid such abuse, and instead murmur that — regardless of the latest Vatican pronouncements — the question should not be considered closed. Given time, and the right occupant of Peter's chair, they suggest that teaching and practice could change.
III. Set aside the Church's teaching on contraception, on homosexual acts, and on other matters of sexual morality.
The aim here is to make the world safe for proportionalism. That is to say, in human terms, clear the way for Fathers Josef Fuchs, SJ, Richard McCormick, SJ, and Charles Curran, and their intellectual progeny among Catholic moralists. Upholding proportionalism — the notion that the morality of actions may be judged according to the consequences which result — entails undermining Pope John Paul II's 1993 encyclical of moral principles, Veritatis Splendor, which insists that there are absolute moral norms, which exclude some acts in any and all circumstances.
Examples abound in the extensive agitation regarding sexual morality. One instance which is notable because of its source is a 1995 document developed by a dozen American bishops and reported to have the support of another thirty, complaining about Roman interference in the bishops' affairs. The document deplores the alleged lack of discussion of numerous issues, including "contraception and sexual ethics." Bishops typically do not say outright that doctrines which trouble them should be scrapped; they call for more discussion on the issues.
IV. Acknowledge the breakdown of some sacramental marriages, and admit divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacraments.
A parish priest writing in the Tablet of London gives this classic statement of the case: "No one rejoices in the plight of the divorced and remarried who are barred from receiving Holy Communion . . . Such a law is only a Church law, and it conflicts with Christ's own command that unless we eat his body and drink his blood we shall not have life in us."
That single sentence contains several large heaps of logic, which are routinely ignored by "progressive" Catholics. They cite the pastoral practice of the Orthodox Church in the matter of divorce and reception of the Eucharist (just as they cite the Orthodox on the question of married priests), and say this represents a better way to handle the problem. They do not explain how they propose to square the pastoral practices they propose with the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage.
V. Involve local priests and lay people, along with the bishops of the country, in episcopal appointments. Significantly reduce the role of papal nuncios, the Congregation for Bishops, and the pope.
Crucial to the progressive agenda is a vast devolution of power (usually called "democratization"), moving authority away from the Pope and Rome, toward the bishops and the national and / or local church.
"Under the current system," explains Father Thomas J. Reese, SJ, of the Woodstock Theological Center, in his book Inside the Vatican, "the pope is getting bishops who support his policies, but he is not getting bishops capable of winning over their people . . . A system needs to be devised that gives greater influence to local bishops and local churches."
How could this be done? Archbishop Quinn suggests "modifications . . . so that the local churches really have a significant and truly substantive role [in appointing bishops] . . . a meaningful and responsible role for priests, laypersons, and religious." Direct consultation, designed to identify specific candidates for vacant dioceses, would help to accomplish this goal.
Another part of the program is the vetting of candidates' names by other bishops — perhaps at the regional level and almost certainly at the level of the bishops' conferences. The pope would retain pro forma authority for episcopal appointments, but for the most part he would simply confirm what others decided.
VI. Give the world's Synod of Bishops decision-making authority.
"Collegiality" — the bishops' pastoral responsibility for the universal Church — is fundamental to the progressive agenda. On their lips this honorable concept, redolent of the teaching of Vatican II, is a battle-cry signifying the devolution of power described above.
Part of the program requires giving significant authority to the Synod of Bishops, which progressives argue Pope John Paul and the Roman Curia have manipulated and controlled. They want the Synod to become an important vehicle of resurgent episcopal power — or, at least, the power of an episcopal elite that goes to synods and serves on the planning groups that function between such assemblies.
In a bold move, Pope John Paul II has decided that, following synods on the laity, priests, and consecrated life, the next general assembly — at a date that has not yet been set — will be on the role of bishops. Perhaps he intends a head-on confrontation with the progressives and a challenge to their agenda.
VII. Convoke Vatican Council III and / or hold ecumenical councils at regular intervals.
Archbishop Quinn suggests an ecumenical council to launch the new millennium. Hans Kung agrees: "The reform of the new church . . . must be carried on at a third Vatican Council."
Progressives want bishops to seize the upper hand in a power struggle with the pope, and they think an ecumenical council holds out some hope in that struggle. Indeed Father Reese wants ecumenical councils every 25 years; and "they will need to include the full participation of all Christian churches if they are to be truly ecumenical."
Overall, then, the system of governance for the universal Church envisaged by progressives looks something like this: policy-making ecumenical councils at regular intervals; general assemblies of the Synod of Bishops every three or four years, to direct implementation of the last council and plan for the next; and a role for the pope and the Roman Curia consisting largely of carrying out decisions of one council and getting ready for the next, always under the supervision of the Synod.
VIII. Turn over power to bishops, and especially to bishops' conferences.
Progressives complain of centralization of power under Pope John Paul II. The Curia, too, is frequently used as a whipping-boy. The American bishops' document mentioned above accuses "Roman documents of varying authority" of reinterpreting Vatican II so as to present "minority petitions . . . as the true meaning of the council." Archbishop Quinn accuses the Curia of acting like a "tertium quid" — under the pope but superior to the bishops.
Naturally, the solution is to give power to bishops. But should the power be given to all bishops, or only to some? In practice the main beneficiaries of the progressives' prescriptions would be episcopal conferences and those who control them.
"Giving more power to these conferences would be . . . a return to ancient traditions," argues Father Reese, who adds — without any apparent sense of irony — that bishops' conferences and ecumenical councils "might well learn from modern secular legislative bodies." And what should they learn? Why, they should learn about the "role of legislatures in controlling bureaucracies and the abuse of executive power" — that is, in controlling the Curia and the pope. Thus chairmen of the relevant committees on bishops conferences (the committees on liturgy, on doctrine, and so on), might set policy for Roman congregations and ride herd on their staff.
IX. Involve bishops directly in the election of the pope.
Progressives do not particularly care for the College of Cardinals. Not only are cardinals hand-picked papal appointees, but in recent years John Paul has sought advice from consistories of cardinals rather than from the Synod. Worst of all, cardinals have the opportunity to elect the pope. The effort to empower bishops entails changing that fact.
This mission could be accomplished in several different ways. For example, there have been suggestions that the pope be elected by the presidents of national bishops' conferences. Or the job might be given to the Synod — with curial and papal appointees excluded.
Lobbying for a new pope
What should we make of all this? Human institutions, including those associated with the Church, usually can be improved. But it is important to realize that alongside the procedural and structural agenda, there is also an agenda for change in dogma. Not all progressive Catholics share in the call for dogmatic change, and no doubt many are unaware of it. But the innovations they advocate would contribute to the realization of that agenda, to the extent they encouraged radical pluralism — that is, relativism — in Catholic life.
This dogmatic agenda concerns issues like papal infallibility and the authority of the magisterium, the interpretation of Scripture, Marian doctrine, the Eucharist, the Resurrection, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Its thrust is to disavow the uniqueness of Christianity as an instrument of salvation; the Christian Church would be seen as standing on much the same footing as other world religions.
The understanding of this agenda leads to a new question: How "progressive" are the progressives? Carried to its logical extreme, the process they support very likely would end in a post-Catholic church — a body that retained some Catholic trappings, but was alienated from the authentic tradition of the Church.
Movement toward the realization of the progressive agenda requires that the right man succeed Pope John Paul. Speaking for We Are Church, the theologian and former priest Anthony Padovano says that his group hopes its efforts will "in some way act as a catalyst at the next election for the pope, to move us toward a moderate pope — maybe even a liberal pope."
In his novel about the next conclave, White Smoke, Father Andrew Greeley explains what that desire might mean. Speaking through a fictitious auxiliary bishop, he describes the result of electing the progressives' candidate, an equally fictitious Cardinal Menendez: "The Holy Spirit . . . will be freed finally to say all the things She wants the ordinary people of God to say in Her name."
"Alas," Greeley adds, "if most of the supporters of Menendez were imaginative enough to foresee such an effect . . . they might well have second thoughts."
Russell Shaw, the director of public information for the Knights of Columbus, writes from Washington, DC.
This item 7464 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
