EXCERPT: John Allen, Jr.’s new book The Future Church: How Ten Trends Are Revolutionizing The Catholic Church offers a journalist's wide-ranging analysis of current global tendencies and their impact on 21st century Catholicism. Much of it reflects realities I have witnessed or heard about or even predicted. But reading the chapter on “Trend Five: Expanding Lay Roles” felt like looking into a mirror image, or even a self-portrait.
Allen begins by describing "the spirit of lay activism stirring in today's church" with anecdotes about two women engaged in lay organizations, and notes "no one in officialdom drew up the plans...and their founders didn't ask anyone's permission.” This reflects my own decision to pursue theological studies: arriving at Harvard Divinity School in 1970, I assumed I would be a lone Catholic alien in a historically Protestant school. It turned out we Catholics were the largest group of students there (this remained true into the 21st century) -- and no one knew why. The school had not recruited Catholics, and our Bishops had not sent us. We just started showing up. Our best guess: what was “stirring” was the Holy Spirit.
Allen notes that "lay empowerment" was too often seen to mean laity holding church positions rather than taking their baptismal vocation into the world. But he now sees that trend cutting the other way:
The growth market for lay leadership won't be reformers seeking to alter official structures and teachings, but rather activists willing to take those things for granted, at least for the time being, in order to get on with the business of saving souls and changing the world.
For me, this reflects my own ambition to mobilize laity for activism, not primarily for reform. That was the common thread as I moved from working as a religious education director to running the Lay Ministry Training Institute, to acting as newspaper editor, to entering private practice in church consulting. Although I generally focused on parish life, and although I personally favored reforms in some church teachings and practices such as celibacy and women's ordination, my professional aim was always making parishes more effective in their mission to the world -- parish as change-agent.
Allen claims the future will emphasize what he calls “Pentecostal Catholicism”:
The growing sector of what one might call Pentecostal Catholics means that an increasing number of laity see themselves as commissioned to act as teachers, evangelists, and activists on the basis of charismatic inspiration rather than formal ecclesiastical authorization.
This has certainly been true for me. While I never joined the Catholic Charismatic movement itself (as my parents did), I had to build my own ministry outside of "formal ecclesiastical authorization.” I have been free-lancing now for nearly twenty years, and routinely tell my parish-based clients: "I do not represent any church officials, and I have no authority here except what you give me. I work for you."
When Allen warns that "the more successful a Catholic initiative becomes, the more hierarchy frets about its independence," my alarm bells go off. These days I mildly tell people, "I have two reputations," glossing over troubled waters: getting fired by two pastors and one bishop; being blackballed by diocesan officials; learning that Bernard Law (whom I had never even met) was questioning both pastors and bishops about my loyalty and orthodoxy; twice being summonsed to the Vicar General’s office, at Bernard Law’s behest, for velvet-gloved threats: ("We would hate to have to tell pastors they could not hire you!").
In my twenties, thirties, and forties, such hierarchical "fretting" took its toll on me and my family (not to mention my income), but by now -- especially following Bernard Law’s fall from grace -- I see my battle scars as badges of honor.
There are still days, amid these tough Catholic times, when I wonder what I've accomplished in nearly 40 years of lay activism. But as I look in Allen's mirror, the self I see reflected in it makes this much crystal clear: these years have been lived on a frontier that no past generation of Catholic laity before us ever approached -- and it is, moreover, a frontier we laity continue to open up toward that “Future Church.”
Friday, April 23, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
#290 The Missing Antidote
On most social issues, Catholics’ opinions today reflect the rest of the population. In an age when Catholicism struggles to sustain its distinct identity, we have largely failed to establish a distinctive social platform among our people. I suspect that on many issues vital to America’s social and moral well-being, the problem is not that Catholics have rejected Catholic Social Teaching (CST). The problem is, they never knew what CST was.
Did most Catholics know their bishops, their pope, and virtually all the world’s bishops opposed the invasion of Iraq – and did they know why?
Did most Catholics test George bush’s assertion that Iraq was a “just war” by using the Catholic criteria for a just war?
When Catholics hear attacks on illegal immigrants, do they know CST calls migration a human right?
When Catholics here that healthcare is “a privilege, not a right” – do they know CST says the opposite?
When a mine disaster pits management against its critics, do Catholics know that CST always favors people over profits?
When policy critics attack “redistributing wealth” as “socialism,” do Catholics know that, in the face of income inequalities, CST labels redistributing wealth “justice,” not “socialism”?
Do Catholics know CST defends the right to private property – but says owners must always use property to serve the common good?
When America cuts back its nuclear arsenal, do Catholics know CST unconditionally condemns the use of nuclear weapons?
When America renounces “first use” of its nukes, do Catholics know CST forbids even the threat of nuclear attack?
When Catholics hear about “family values” do they know CST regards the human race as a single family – so that racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant attitudes all violate true family values?
Do Catholics know CST does not recognize “success” in war (whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else) as a moral justification?
Facing venomous debates about “Big” versus “Small” government, do Catholics know CST says size does not matter, but favors government that promotes the common good and a just social order?
I’m afraid that there is a yawning chasm between the vision of CST and the world view of many Catholics. Too many of them get their social values from secular society – from party politics, or media “pundits,” possibly from friends and family. If I’m right, on most social issues, millions of Catholics do not know their own faith.
Did most Catholics know their bishops, their pope, and virtually all the world’s bishops opposed the invasion of Iraq – and did they know why?
Did most Catholics test George bush’s assertion that Iraq was a “just war” by using the Catholic criteria for a just war?
When Catholics hear attacks on illegal immigrants, do they know CST calls migration a human right?
When Catholics here that healthcare is “a privilege, not a right” – do they know CST says the opposite?
When a mine disaster pits management against its critics, do Catholics know that CST always favors people over profits?
When policy critics attack “redistributing wealth” as “socialism,” do Catholics know that, in the face of income inequalities, CST labels redistributing wealth “justice,” not “socialism”?
Do Catholics know CST defends the right to private property – but says owners must always use property to serve the common good?
When America cuts back its nuclear arsenal, do Catholics know CST unconditionally condemns the use of nuclear weapons?
When America renounces “first use” of its nukes, do Catholics know CST forbids even the threat of nuclear attack?
When Catholics hear about “family values” do they know CST regards the human race as a single family – so that racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant attitudes all violate true family values?
Do Catholics know CST does not recognize “success” in war (whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else) as a moral justification?
Facing venomous debates about “Big” versus “Small” government, do Catholics know CST says size does not matter, but favors government that promotes the common good and a just social order?
I’m afraid that there is a yawning chasm between the vision of CST and the world view of many Catholics. Too many of them get their social values from secular society – from party politics, or media “pundits,” possibly from friends and family. If I’m right, on most social issues, millions of Catholics do not know their own faith.
Monday, April 12, 2010
#289: Will The Real Bad Guys Please Stand Up?
EXCERPT: Benedict, both as a Bishop and as Vatican official, has personified the kind of official plagued with a good heart but bad vision. Men like him (and they were all men) had the best intentions to protect the Body of Christ from harm – but their horrifying myopia has cost us all dearly. To put it simply: they went after the wrong “bad guys.”
This sad story offers lots of villains: the child-rapists themselves; their enablers and protectors; commentators attacking the media for investigating criminal behavior; commentators aiming to exploit scandal simply to harm the church; church officials who avoided facing the scandal for fear of harming the church.
But from 1981 on, Joseph Ratzinger earned the moniker “God’s Rottweiler” for his aggressive vigilance against a wholly different target: priests whose writing, speaking, and thinking seemed at odds with official Church teaching. Jason Berry sums up that history like this:
As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was decisive in running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is housed in a 17th-century palazzo where Galileo the astronomer was convicted of heresy. On issues ranging from the Vatican prohibition of birth control devices to Liberation Theology of Latin America, the C.D.F. used anonymous investigators to critique the works of suspect scholars. In closed tribunals, Ratzinger and his assistants interrogated those out of step with doctrine, punishing some by excommunication or orders to keep silent for periods of time. Catholic liberals were aghast as Ratzinger clashed with some of the church's leading thinkers. The Swiss theologian, Father Hans Küng, famously called him "The Grand Inquisitor," after Dostoevsky's religious persecutor in "The Brothers Karamazov."
Ratzinger was perfectly cast for the role, since he had battled such “dissidents” as both theologian and bishop throughout the 1970s even before coming to the Vatican. Indeed, he was a hero to all who, like him, felt that allowing such dissent to continue would do irreparable harm to the Church.
But while vigilant defenders of the faith of like Ratzinger and his supporters crusaded against a few dozen maverick thinkers, thousands of priests worldwide continued to rape children and youth even after their crimes were discovered. Their bishops recycled them, protected them from discovery, and fought all attempts to bring their crimes (or even official documentation of their crimes) to light.
The appalling truth is that Ratzinger and all like-minded bishops, clergy, and laity committed a horrible blunder. They poured all their energies into suppressing the threat from “dissenters,” blind to the much greater threat of child abuse.
These men were obsessed with enforcing orthodoxy (correct teaching) but blind to the importance of enforcing orthopraxy (correct practice). The system they protected enshrined secrecy and non-accountability, and made a thriving breeding ground for the very “filth” Ratzinger himself later decried. How sadly ironic: that someone so alert to the least deviation from official thinking had no clue about deviant behavior.
The Church could well have used his vigilance aimed at the real threat—but the blinders have fallen from his eyes too late. He must now resort to apologizing to victims, because no one ever protected them. Perhaps Benedict’s reputation will survive – but to tell the truth, his belief (shared by many others) that liberal theologians were the greatest threat to the Body of Christ has turned out to be tragically bad judgment.
This sad story offers lots of villains: the child-rapists themselves; their enablers and protectors; commentators attacking the media for investigating criminal behavior; commentators aiming to exploit scandal simply to harm the church; church officials who avoided facing the scandal for fear of harming the church.
But from 1981 on, Joseph Ratzinger earned the moniker “God’s Rottweiler” for his aggressive vigilance against a wholly different target: priests whose writing, speaking, and thinking seemed at odds with official Church teaching. Jason Berry sums up that history like this:
As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was decisive in running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is housed in a 17th-century palazzo where Galileo the astronomer was convicted of heresy. On issues ranging from the Vatican prohibition of birth control devices to Liberation Theology of Latin America, the C.D.F. used anonymous investigators to critique the works of suspect scholars. In closed tribunals, Ratzinger and his assistants interrogated those out of step with doctrine, punishing some by excommunication or orders to keep silent for periods of time. Catholic liberals were aghast as Ratzinger clashed with some of the church's leading thinkers. The Swiss theologian, Father Hans Küng, famously called him "The Grand Inquisitor," after Dostoevsky's religious persecutor in "The Brothers Karamazov."
Ratzinger was perfectly cast for the role, since he had battled such “dissidents” as both theologian and bishop throughout the 1970s even before coming to the Vatican. Indeed, he was a hero to all who, like him, felt that allowing such dissent to continue would do irreparable harm to the Church.
But while vigilant defenders of the faith of like Ratzinger and his supporters crusaded against a few dozen maverick thinkers, thousands of priests worldwide continued to rape children and youth even after their crimes were discovered. Their bishops recycled them, protected them from discovery, and fought all attempts to bring their crimes (or even official documentation of their crimes) to light.
The appalling truth is that Ratzinger and all like-minded bishops, clergy, and laity committed a horrible blunder. They poured all their energies into suppressing the threat from “dissenters,” blind to the much greater threat of child abuse.
These men were obsessed with enforcing orthodoxy (correct teaching) but blind to the importance of enforcing orthopraxy (correct practice). The system they protected enshrined secrecy and non-accountability, and made a thriving breeding ground for the very “filth” Ratzinger himself later decried. How sadly ironic: that someone so alert to the least deviation from official thinking had no clue about deviant behavior.
The Church could well have used his vigilance aimed at the real threat—but the blinders have fallen from his eyes too late. He must now resort to apologizing to victims, because no one ever protected them. Perhaps Benedict’s reputation will survive – but to tell the truth, his belief (shared by many others) that liberal theologians were the greatest threat to the Body of Christ has turned out to be tragically bad judgment.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
#288: New Pro-life Profiles
EXCERPT: Amid many surprises surrounding passage of Healthcare Reform came the last minute plot-twist from Rep. Bart Stupak. Stymied in his effort to insert ironclad language banning federal funds for abortion, he obtained an equivalent “ironclad” executive order from President Obama, and led his supporters in casting the decisive votes for House passage. The ban will continue not only under the protection of the Hyde amendment, but now under the direct authority of the President. The same authority George W. Bush used to restrict stem-cell research is now applied to abortion by Barack Obama.
This stunning development produced several consequences, and also contains several lessons which are relevant to Catholic Social Teaching.
…Second Lesson: Bart Stupak’s move has altered the political profile of the pro-life movement, by showing that one can be both pro-life and progressive.
Conservatives have mostly monopolized the pro-life platform, but Stupak (despite his public image) never fit the mold. …Stupak’s mold is actually the classic “Catholic Liberal Democrat” we’ve known since the New Deal.
Since Roe V. Wade in 1973 this classic mold has broken down, as the country’s polarization between “pro life” and “pro choice” drove many Catholics to vote Republican – and led some (like RI legislator and Commonweal commentator David Carlin) to question whether a Catholic can be a Democrat at all!
Stupak has altered this dynamic, with his pro-life ratings (0% from NARAL, 100% from National Right to Life Committee). It is too soon to tell, but arguably he could offer a new profile for a style of pro-life progressive politician acceptable to both mainstream Democrats and mainline Catholics.
Third Lesson: Barack Obama has altered his own profile. …In one pen-stroke, Obama joined those banning federal funding of abortions while guaranteeing reforms that can reduce abortions. If Healthcare Reform does induce a significant decline in abortions, Obama will have accomplished more pro-life success than Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush combined.
Fourth Lesson: Finally, this episode exposes two dark dimensions of the pro-life movement.
On the one hand, we have witnessed the fanaticism of those who scorn the bona fides of anyone who disagrees with them or fails to match their own private standards. After months of touting Bart Stupak as a champion of their cause, they now call him traitor and worse, threatening him and his family. Such fanatics render Stupak a kind of profile in courage, but also reveal the ugly undercurrent of violence within the pro-life movement.
On the other hand, we have seen the cynicism of those prepared to exploit the unborn to promote their own politics. Stupak himself described that cynicism in the days following his coup:
The true motives of many blogs and organizations claiming to be pro-life have become clear in recent days: to politicize life issues as a means to defeat health care reform...The pro-life groups rallied behind me -- many without my knowledge or consent -- not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation.
Catholics everywhere should decry such cynicism. We reject using the unborn as bait to lure others to our politics, and we reject attempts to dupe Catholics into embracing anti-Catholic social policies just because they are wrapped in pro-life ribbons. For us, protection of the unborn must be a principle, not propaganda.
This stunning development produced several consequences, and also contains several lessons which are relevant to Catholic Social Teaching.
…Second Lesson: Bart Stupak’s move has altered the political profile of the pro-life movement, by showing that one can be both pro-life and progressive.
Conservatives have mostly monopolized the pro-life platform, but Stupak (despite his public image) never fit the mold. …Stupak’s mold is actually the classic “Catholic Liberal Democrat” we’ve known since the New Deal.
Since Roe V. Wade in 1973 this classic mold has broken down, as the country’s polarization between “pro life” and “pro choice” drove many Catholics to vote Republican – and led some (like RI legislator and Commonweal commentator David Carlin) to question whether a Catholic can be a Democrat at all!
Stupak has altered this dynamic, with his pro-life ratings (0% from NARAL, 100% from National Right to Life Committee). It is too soon to tell, but arguably he could offer a new profile for a style of pro-life progressive politician acceptable to both mainstream Democrats and mainline Catholics.
Third Lesson: Barack Obama has altered his own profile. …In one pen-stroke, Obama joined those banning federal funding of abortions while guaranteeing reforms that can reduce abortions. If Healthcare Reform does induce a significant decline in abortions, Obama will have accomplished more pro-life success than Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush combined.
Fourth Lesson: Finally, this episode exposes two dark dimensions of the pro-life movement.
On the one hand, we have witnessed the fanaticism of those who scorn the bona fides of anyone who disagrees with them or fails to match their own private standards. After months of touting Bart Stupak as a champion of their cause, they now call him traitor and worse, threatening him and his family. Such fanatics render Stupak a kind of profile in courage, but also reveal the ugly undercurrent of violence within the pro-life movement.
On the other hand, we have seen the cynicism of those prepared to exploit the unborn to promote their own politics. Stupak himself described that cynicism in the days following his coup:
The true motives of many blogs and organizations claiming to be pro-life have become clear in recent days: to politicize life issues as a means to defeat health care reform...The pro-life groups rallied behind me -- many without my knowledge or consent -- not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation.
Catholics everywhere should decry such cynicism. We reject using the unborn as bait to lure others to our politics, and we reject attempts to dupe Catholics into embracing anti-Catholic social policies just because they are wrapped in pro-life ribbons. For us, protection of the unborn must be a principle, not propaganda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)