Rebuilding the Church: Pope Francis and After

By Joseph Stanley

The unexpected resignation of Pope Benedict XVI followed by
the election of Pope Francis of quite a different mould has
introduced into the Church not more theological discourse, but
signifi cant theological action a constant preaching, where words are
used only when necessary. This book presents four essays starting with
an imaginary trajectory of the Church during the next hundred years
where a new style of leadership in the church renews its strength and
vigour by co-opting competent and committed laity. Will this dream
ever be realized? The contention of the author is that it can, because his
dreams are consonant with the doctrinal heritage of the Catholic Church,
as he indicates in the notes. His prayer and wish is that it becomes a
reality. The second essay suggests a pastoral approach that could pave
the way to facilitate the emergence of such a situation. The third essay
is a theological elaboration of the place of the teaching authority of the
church. The fourth essay is a short article which indicates that change
has taken place and will continue to take place in the Church.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: May 14, 2013
• ISBN: 9781483626567

Joseph Stanley

THE AUTHOR who writes under the pseudonym is a very highly qualified individual in civil law, philosophy, Buddhism and Christianity. He has wide experience of teaching in various parts of the world at University level. His thoughts recorded in this book will certainly provoke deep and searching reflection in the reader.

Book preview

Copyright © 2013 by Joseph Stanley.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Rev. date: 05/08/2013

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

129213

Contents

PREFACE

A TRAJECTORY OF THE CHURCH IN THE FUTURE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN 1130

PASTORAL CARE: PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE

THE MAGISTERIUM: GENERAL PROBLEMS AND HERMENEUTICS96

REVERSAL OF POSITION BY THE CHURCH107

PREFACE

We and our opinions and perspectives do not dictate what the Church is now and certainly not what it has been; and the experience of this loss of control is itself salutary… . The Church was clearly and blasphemously wrong for the greater part of two millennia on the subject of slavery; many would add that it has been no less wrong for even longer about the status of women. To be ‘catholic’ now involves resisting the temptation to blot out and forget this past, and the equally powerful temptation to condemn from a superior vantage-point. This kind of catholicity obliges us to recognize the Church’s fallibility and to admit our complicity in the Church’s continuing liability to failure and betrayal… . We can only be grateful that even a slave-owning Church had just enough sensitivity to the challenge of the gospel for a protest to be generated (however slowly) and a new awareness—of which we are the direct beneficiaries—to come into being. This is a catholicity which may weep over the universal liability to error, yet rejoice at the universal pressure towards truth, penitence and transformation says Rowan Williams¹, the Archbishop of Canterbury emeritus.

What will this pressure of the gospel towards truth, penitence and transformation bring to the Church—especially the Catholic Church—let us say, a hundred years from now? It is hard to say. Will it be different? Definitely. What contours will it take? One can perhaps hazard a guess, because those contours are being shaped now—people’s thinking patterns being changed by IT, events in the church which evoke adverse reactions to the role models and authority figures in the church, the emerging self-confidence of people and especially of women, the growing concern for self with no absolutes and everything judged as relative to the self, instant gratification, increased emotional rather than doctrinal content in catechesis and so on and so forth.

Will these forces jell together and reach a critical point? If so, when? It is almost impossible to predict. Who could predict that the storming of the Bastille (14th July 1789) would mark the French Revolution with its subsequent revolutions all through Europe in the 19th century? Who could have predicted that when the East German government announced on 9 November 1989 that all German Democratic Republic citizens could visit West Germany and West Berlin, that crowds of East Germans would cross the wall and with the fall of the Berlin Wall, communism would crumble as in a game of nine pins. These events have resulted not merely in ideological changes, but have also had economic, social and political repercussions throughout the world.

What will the Church look like in another hundred years? Even though accurate prediction is not possible, the imagination can envision possibilities. When we look at Church History, Tradition, Scripture, Theology, in the light of the ground realities in the church and in the world, are we not entitled to say: What has been can come into existence (albeit in an altered form) again—the old adage ab esse ad posse valet illatio? That is why the notes appended to the text are important. They remind us of a past that has been forgotten.

Two views of modernity and the place of man are in conflict. The first is that the renaissance of the 14th and 15th centuries which came to fruition in the 18th century Enlightenment has produced the modern world. Man is the centre of the world, and so what brings about the advancement of man is to be preferred to anything else. And thus materialism, consumerism, relativism, hedonism etc. The second is that man has been able to make himself central, precisely because the 8th century Hebrew prophets, especially Amos and Isaiah, preached that the true God is above the various gods of the nations (that held people in fear) and that he is the creator of the world, which he himself has called good. No matter what man does (sin, hatred, deceit, bloodshed etc.), that goodness of the world and of man remains. There is the always possibility of something radically new emerging in human history, until the radically new in the victory over death of the paschal mystery, the fulfillment of the Davidic messiah, who would bring in a new era of justice and peace. Many of the key ideas of the modern world, such as atheism, secularism, science, democracy, and naturalistic humanism, which is alleged to be the default worldview of the modern world, have their origin in biblical Christianity. The first group in Western history to be called atheists was the Christians, according to the 2nd-century apologist Justin Martyr. Why? Because they didn’t believe in the Roman gods, including the gods who inhabited the heavenly bodies. This atheism had its foundation in the prophetic critique of idolatry that was reaffirmed in the teaching of Jesus and Paul. This was directly connected with the emergence of secularism. Modern secularism is originally based on the biblical insight that only God is holy and divine. The world is creature and thus neither divine nor full of divine beings, since angels and demons are understood to be creatures. It was this liberation from fear that has pushed man forward even to the point of rejecting the very concepts that brought him to his freedom from fear. These two views are engaged in a drama pitting one against the other. And it will continue, not because of something that is said or taught or preached, but because those who hear turn back to the basic message—look on the one you have rejected, repent and be baptized. The very election of Pope Francis, who was hardly considered as a possibility embodies this new thing emerging in history. He engages in a the spirit of Francis of Assisi Preach the Gospel always; if necessary use words. His actions (each filled with their theological content are silent messages to the world.) His words are few and simple. Will his approach be encashed leading to turning to Christ in repentance? Christ is the centre. Christ is the fundamental point of reference, the heart of the Church. Without him, Peter and the Church would not exist or have reason to exist.

The Church takes on the forms of this passing world in its institutions and in its sacraments, Vatican II admitted (LG 48). But there is the unremitting function of the gospel in history—the Word that goes forth from God’s mouth and does not return empty (Is 55:11). What can we expect in the not too distant future? As the recently elected Pope Francis has said (16 March 2013): The Church is certainly a human and historical institution with all that that entails, yet her nature is not essentially political but spiritual: the Church is the People of God, the Holy People of God making its way to encounter Jesus Christ. Only from this perspective can a satisfactory account be given of the Church’s life and activity. Christ is the Church’s Pastor, but his presence in history passes through the freedom of human beings; from their midst one is chosen to serve as his Vicar, the Successor of the Apostle Peter. Yet Christ remains the centre, not the Successor of Peter: Christ, Christ is the centre. Christ is the fundamental point of reference, the heart of the Church. Without him, Peter and the Church would not exist or have reason to exist. And so, the challenge. Pope Francis in his Mass with the cardinal electors (14 March 2013) said: The same Peter who professed Jesus Christ, now says to him: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. I will follow you, but let us not speak of the Cross. That has nothing to do with it. I will follow you on other terms, but without the Cross. When we journey without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly: we may be bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, but not disciples of the Lord.

In his book, The Arians of the Fourth Century, John Henry Newman², wrote: "The episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicaea on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. Of course there were great and illustrious exceptions; first, Athanasius, Hilary, the Latin Eusebius, and Phoebadius; and after them, Basil, the two Gregories, and Ambrose; there are others, too, who suffered, if they did nothing else, as Eustathius, Paulus, Paulinus, and Dionysius; and the Egyptian bishops, whose weight was small in the Church in proportion to the great power of their Patriarch. And, on the other hand, as I shall say presently, there were exceptions to the Christian heroism of the laity, especially in some of the great towns. And again, in speaking of the laity, I speak inclusively of their parish-priests (so to call them), at least in many places; but on the whole, taking a wide view of the history, we are obliged to say that the governing body of the Church came short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy.

This is a very remarkable fact: but there is a moral in it. Perhaps it was permitted, in order to impress upon the Church at that very time passing out of her state of persecution to her long temporal ascendancy, the great evangelical lesson, that, not the wise and powerful, but the obscure, the unlearned, and the weak constitute her real strength. It was mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown; it was by the faithful people, under the lead of Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places supported by their Bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was withstood and stamped out of the sacred territory. And then, Newman goes on to document his statement. Today, perhaps we can legitimately ask: As the bishops and the church leadership are losing moral authority, what contribution can lay women and men with proven achievement and commitment make to church governance and administration? This is perhaps the issue of the future. How it is resolved will mean the existence of the Church in a persistent vegetative state" or growing with the vibrancy of the God who raised Jesus from the dead.

I bring together in this little work two articles of mine and two other articles—the one by Dom Cyprian Vagaggini (a theologian and important figure of the liturgical revival of Vatican II) and the other, by Humphrey O’Leary (a qualified canonist, who moved easily in several other disciplines). The purpose of this work is not to provide solutions to the very complex issues presently troubling the church. These articles provide material for reflection and are meant to provoke thinking, so that in our day as in the 4th and 5th centuries, the laity would still prove to be the salt of the earth and retain the church as the city on a hilltop and the light that cannot be hidden under a basket. Vatican I (1869-1870) defined the infallibility of the Pope; Vatican II (1962-1965) spoke of the collegiality of the bishops with the Pope and the baptismal rights of the laity. Beyond the talk, can there be real collaboration and cooperation in action—that is the issue that this little work tries to address.

31st March 2013Joseph Stanley

A TRAJECTORY OF THE

CHURCH IN THE FUTURE:

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN 1130

By Joseph Stanley

Every institution always seeks to preserve and augment its power, but the philosopher Charles Taylor, in A Secular Age, has traced the genesis of a culture of control from the seventeenth century onwards. Society is seen as a mechanism rather than an organism, which needs to be adjusted and manipulated.

Monarchs claimed absolute power even over the Church. Imperial powers took possession of the world; millions of people were enslaved and treated as commodities. Once society has ceased to believe in God’s gentle providential government of the world, then the state must take his place and impose its will. This culture of power is perhaps one reason for the widespread abuse of children in our society. The Church, alas, has often been infected by this same culture of control. This happened partly because the Church has for centuries struggled to defend itself against the powers of this world who want to take it over. From the Roman Empire at the time of its birth until the Communist empires of the twentieth century, the Church has fought to keep hold of its own life, and often ended up by mirroring what it opposed.

We will not have a Church which is safe for the young until we learn from Christ and become again a humble Church in which we are all equal children of the one Father and authority is never oppressive… .

Painfully, the Lord is demolishing our high towers and our clerical pretensions to glory and grandeur so that the Church may be a place in which we may encounter God and each other more intimately. Jesus promises rest for our souls.

So if we face this terrible crisis of sexual abuse with courage and faith, then it may precipitate a profound renewal of the Church³.

It is always dangerous to write about the future. Who knows what will happen? The demise of the church has been predicted many times before. Recall the cry of Voltaire (1694-1778)—Crush that infamous thing or the statement of Nietzsche (1844-1900): God is dead and we have killed him. Somehow the church has survived to see another century. Despite those who say that Vatican II did nothing and those who say it did not do enough, the fact is that something irreversible happened. It changed many of the perspectives by which we live as Christians. Think of the language/s in which the liturgy is celebrated, the attitudes to non-Christians and Jews, the issues that concern human dignity and freedom, to mention just a few. But we seem to have reached a point of stagnation—plenty of words with little to show in action, abundant denunciation and condemnation with little endorsement and witness.

Will the church of the 21st century and later, survive in a persistent vegetative state—without moral authority, making moral demands that no one heeds? Will a renewal take place along lines that we do not see at present? I venture to write a trajectory for the future of the church—altogether possible, but unlikely. Possible, because not one thing in the changes envisaged goes against the doctrinal heritage of the Church. Unlikely, because change is always rejected and cultural change takes centuries. Often, non-theological factors are more influential than theological factors. Yet, there are many new things at the present time—the growth and the very rapid proliferation of IT, the growth of communities of varying types, constant linkages, and especially a strong watchfulness exercised by secular powers forcing the church to unmask itself and go back to basics—trends that almost demand change, even from persons who are not in the first place open to it.

At the present time, many issues that are wrong with the Church (e.g. sexual abuse, cover-up, double standards, one-sided claims for freedom of conscience, tight control over disagreement with doctrine, a creeping infallibility and so on) have been highlighted (even sensationalized) and brought to general attention by the secular institutions (the judiciary, the media of mass communication). How long can this continue into the future? The power base of the Church lies with its lay membership, who provides the man-power and the financial support of the church. As the man power and financial support erode, many forms of organization will need to be re-designed. In addition, globalization is proceeding apace. It is effecting major changes in the world. Who will be the superpower/s in a hundred years? An educated guess is that it will be China, with India not too far behind. If such be the case, then, the mind sets and ethos of these nations will certainly impact the church and its institutions as well, starting in the first place with individuals, who would be trying to get ahead in society. These will very likely be another of the forces that will impact on and transform the Church of the future. But let us start with the present.

The Moral Authority of the Church:

In 2010, everybody talked of sexual abuse and betrayal of trust by members of the clergy. True, there is no excuse for such behavior, much less, excuse for cover-up of such behavior. But which institution on earth can ever pledge that its membership will never indulge in such activity—there will always be offenders. Sin is a reality. An institution can only pledge never to cover up such issues. And it is the cover-up together with the refusal to act for the common good (the welfare of victims and possible victims) that has aroused such outrage. And that outrage has eroded the moral authority and standing of the church. But moral authority began to erode long ago. At the present time, the issue is more a cry of outrage. A society that does not express its outrage is doomed to destruction. A leadership that ignores the outrage is doomed as well.

For many centuries the ministry in the church contributed to the relevant needs of society. Gradually, it initiated many good things (e.g. care of the sick, education of the masses). With time those good things were done better by the state and professionals. Now, many religious people continuing to do what they do, are wasting away. So, Very intelligent people can be seen running waste both inside and outside our institutions. Outside them, it runs waste in suicide and depression, in quarrelling, alcoholism, neurosis and organized crime, in various ways of killing time, and most recently, down special sinks designed for it called computer games. Inside the institutions, it lavishes itself on intrigues and obsessions of the most various kinds, on internal feuds and deceptions and in finding ways to block measures introduced by other people.⁴

Unfortunately, today the Church is not attacked; it is ignored. What difference does it make to the quality of life if one never goes to Sunday Mass or contributes nothing to the support of the Church. In fact, it is much easier to follow the current trend and decide for oneself. If there is one single event in history that marks as it were a watershed—and such specification is not always accurate—when the leadership of the church, the Pope, in particular, and bishops, who towed the line, began to lose their moral authority, it was the publication of Humanae Vitae (1968). There was outrage among people (what do celibates understand about the intimacy of the bedroom?) Several Conferences of Bishops expressed their disagreement with the Encyclical. Unfortunately, the message which Humanae Vitae intended to convey got mixed up (or, backfired?) and evoked the wrong responses. The laity began making up their own minds on the issues dealt with in Humanae Vitae. That attitude extended itself to other issues as well. All morality was considered relative. Yes, humans are rational, but they are also selfish in their choices. And so the reasoning: If one issue can be decided in one way—ignoring the teaching of the church—why not others as well? Why not a cafeteria approach to religion—take what you like?

They rejected what they perceived as the message and thrust of the Encyclical. But was that really the message Humanae Vitae, intended to convey? To speak a little about the background of the encyclical. In 1965, Paul VI appointed a commission of 52 persons including lay women and medical experts as well as cardinals and bishops. A majority report in favour of some relaxation in the Church’s teaching on contraception was submitted to the Pope. A minority report on holding the line was also submitted to the Pope. Pope Paul then appointed a smaller commission of 16, and 12 of these came out in favour of a change. The Pope went by the four voices of this smaller commission. The Tablet reports a first person account of something that happened: "I [Fr. Roland Quesnel C.Ss.P)] was working in the Vatican’s mission department at the time and when Anthony Pantin, the newly appointed Archbishop of Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, came to Rome a year after Humanae Vitae was issued, he asked Cardinal Villot, how he should present the encyclical in Trinidad. Cardinal Villot replied: Go and see Fr. Visser. He wrote the encyclical. Fr. Jan Visser C.Ss.R. one of the minority four had been chosen by Pope Paul to draft the encyclical, which His Holiness then revised and approved. I went with Archbishop Pantin to see Fr. Visser and was allowed to listen to the conversation. I remember very clearly the words Fr. Visser used: "Your Grace, the written word is one thing. How it is interpreted is