Catholic Beliefs Threatened

The Catholic News Service recently quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying that ‘Catholic beliefs are not open to popular vote’.

Pope Benedict XVI is absolutely correct ‘Catholicism is not open to popular vote or democracy’.   However, there is little doubt that the institutional Church under Pope Benedict is operated under a distinct form of autocracy or even a theocracy.  History teaches that the Roman Catholic Church once claimed the role of supreme ruler of the world (a role Jesus clearly rejected while spending 40 days in the desert).  It is precisely this form of institutional religion Jesus came to reject and turn upside down. By following a way of life as lived by Jesus we no longer have the need for earthly power or control.  When our communities are places where everyone is welcome we will discover the true meaning of God's unconditional love.  Here we lead by example not by fixed dogmas or doctrine which has brought the world so much division and exclusion.

God did not create us to be robots.  God created us for greatness endowed with holiness and diversity. God created us to become responsible adults trusting in the Holy Spirit. God created us as unique individuals to share our diverse gifts as a means of unity and reject any feelings of superiority.  Even before we were adults we were confirmed in the Holy Spirit.  Has Benedict forgotten that ‘the People of God’ through this sacrament were assured that ‘the Holy Spirit will teach us all we need to know’? (Jn 14:26; Lk. 12:12) Now Benedict XV! would have us surrender what God gave us freely through his Holy Spirit.  Why? Because the Vatican seeks power and control by reinforcing and centralising its hierarchical institution.  Benedict has rejected many of the visions held by Vatican II.  For example , why is collegiality is no longer practised, and why must theologians now surrender their God given inspiration to the Bishops?  And why must the laity now surrender and hide their gifts of the Holy Spirit under a bushel? (Mt. 5:14-15) What has happened to the supremacy of the individual conscience as stated in the documents of Vatican II? There simply is no hierarchy among Kingdom people.     

Jesus never wrote anything down and never insisted we embrace or practise his Jewish religion.  Jesus merely asked we become kingdom people. Isn’t that what we pray for when we say let ‘thy Kingdom come’? Here is the place where God accepts us as we are not as others would have us be.  Here is the place we have no need for condemnation, scapegoating or separation from all others be they relativists, secularists, atheists, gays etc., etc.. Here is the place where God is only interested in our potential not our sins.  Here is the place where it is safe to acknowledge that the ‘Devil’ or ‘Satan’ is none other than our individual ego’s which is responsible for so much pain and suffering in the world.  Here is the place we will discover that the life we lead is not about us, but rather about God experiencing himself through each of us in a unique and mysterious way.

Democracy versus Autocracy

Old and New model of church

The term ‘People of God’ was first introduced by Vatican II in its document now known as the ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium). This document radically introduced a church that has moved away from the previous overemphasis on the hierarchy to a concept of church as including the whole people of God. Thus the major shift at Vatican II was from a church too concerned with juridical and the official church aware of itself as a mystery that expresses the love of God for all humankind.

Pope Benedict XVI on several occasions firmly criticized dissent from church teachings as disobedience of God's will.  While this charge would affect an estimated 90+ percent of Catholic women who have practiced birth control at one time of more during their lives – it is hardly encouraging for any meaningful and true dialogue between the faithful and the clergy on matters of faith.    

In this regard “the body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 John 2:20,27), cannot err in matters of belief. Thanks to a supernatural sense of the faith (sensus fidei) which characterizes the people as a whole, it manifests this unerring quality when ‘from the bishops down to the last member of the laity,’ it shows universal agreement on matters of faith and morals” (Lumen Gentium, 12).

When Benedict quotes his understanding of “sensus fidei” he subordinates its meaning by adding that this sense of faith “can come only when Catholics actively participate in the life of the church and follow the teaching of the pope and bishops”.  In other words, only the Catholic hierarchy alone holds the truth.    

The Church Is a Democracy

Daniel C. Maguire, Professor of Ethics at Marquette University offers this valuable insight on why the Church Is a Democracy  

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/Church_IS_a_Democracy.htm

Is disobedience to Church teachings a sin?

“Any form of inquisition, however subtle, not only harms the development of a sound theology, it also causes irreparable damage to the credibility of the church as a community in the modern world,” - Nijmegen Declaration (1968) co-signed Joseph Ratzinger

It is now evident that  former Cardinal now Pope Benedict has completely reversed his stance on dissent from Church teachings by calling for total obedience to church teachings as God's will. Catholics today are faced with overwhelming number of religious issues ranging from birth control to euthanasia. At the same time we are being told that to deviate from Church teaching is a grave sin. Can we know for certain who is right and who is wrong? The answer to that question for some will be a definitive ‘YES’ and for others an equally definitive ‘NO’! Confusing? Not really.

It is important to note Benedict’s warning equates ‘dissent’ from Church teachings as a direct disobedience to God. This kind of dogmatic reasoning completely ignores the primacy of individual conscience. Remember even Jesus deferred to the Father (John 8:28). Church teachings, except for declarations about Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, are and never have been infallible. Ultimately we must learn to rely on our relationship with God and the teachings of the Church. However, when there is conflict between the two we must obey one or the other.

Today there are those who seek safety in their faith by submitting to a strict obedience to Church teachings. However there are also those who have matured beyond the need for ready answers. Jesus reminds us that “no one can be a slave of two masters; he will hate one and love the other; he will be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money”. (Mat. 6:24) In either case God, through his unconditional love for humanity will respect the basis for our individual decisions. The role of the Church is to reflect that unconditional love and bring us to a mature understanding of our faith. As adults we are called to take personal responsibility for the growth of our faith. Anything else merely keeps us dependent on the opinions and decisions from people we probably do not even know or understand. In modern terms this is known as a co-dependency! This cannot bring us to a healthy relationship with God or with ourselves. Jesus recognized this problem when he said “No pupil is greater than his teacher, but every pupil when he has completed his training will be like his teacher”. (Luke 6:40). The Church at times has been an excellent and very necessary teacher, but like any good parent, the time comes when it needs to let go and let God. Perhaps this point is best illustrated when Catholics begin to understand the Sacraments as a starting point rather than a destination. The rest is the responsibility of the individual adult.

Confirmation (Latin confirmare, make firm) is the sacrament of initiation through which baptized Christians receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit which strengthens them in their faith. Accordingly this is the time an individual commits or awakens his or her self to the Divine Indwelling, a.k.a. the ‘Internal Guidance System’, or the ‘True-Self’. Traditionally this is the point at which the ‘confirmed’ take full responsibility for the future growth of their faith and marks the beginning of the formation of the individual conscience. The primacy of the individual conscience was clearly recognized by Vatican II and therefore part of todays church teaching. It can be found in  PastoralConstitution on the Church in the Modern World, Par. 16. 

At this point we need to learn to rely and trust in our ‘Internal Guidance System’ whenever an emotion resonates be that positive or negative. Whenever we are responding positively, we can know that we are in alignment with our True Self/Guidance System. Alternatively, if we find ourselves responding negatively to a situation/question, we can know that we are out of that alignment. The greatest affirmation we can receive is God’s promise that “The Helper, the Holy Spirit, will teach you everything and make you remember all that I have told you” (John 14:26). While God set us free, our ego or ‘False-Self’ can easily deceive us and cause us to chose wrongly or out of alignment. There certainly have been times in Church history that it too was out of alignment. But Benedict’s silencing of dissenting voices may also shut out the voice of the Holy Spirit at a time when it is needed most.

Dissent within the Catholic Church

The Irish Times filed this report May 19^th. 2012 about Pope Benedict’s problem with dissent within the Catholic Church.  Under the banner ‘Pope has consistently come down on dissent within the church like a hammer’. Reporter PATSY McGARRY provides the following retrospective view on the occasion of the seventh anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI on April 19th, 2005.

The scenes on St Peter’s Square that afternoon illustrated what this divisive figure has meant for his church. Middle-aged and older people were crestfallen. A man sat at one of the great fountains in the square and wept openly. Around him danced seminarians from the North American College.

Well-scrubbed and in cassocks, they could not contain their glee. “Benedicto, Benedicto, Benedicto,” they shouted. “It’s a regular party,” a seminarian from Pittsburg told this reporter.

For them, the election of John Paul II’s enforcer as pope represented the final defeat of that liberal Catholicism ushered in following Vatican II which they and their mentors see as at the root of all that is wrong in the church today. The rigid certainties enforced by the new pope had so much more appeal for them than the porous, inclusive Catholicism of the previous generation.

Pope Benedict’s views were well-known, as were his attitudes to dissent. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger helped to force closed many windows thrown open by Pope John XXIII and Vatican II.

For instance, where ecumenism was concerned and in his infamous Dominus Iesus document of 2000, he dismissed all reformed churches as not churches “in the proper sense”. They were merely “ecclesial communities”. All other faiths were“gravely deficient”. In 1997, he described Buddhism as an “auto-erotic spirituality”. Hinduism was based on a concept of reincarnation resembling “a continuous circle of hell”.

On celibacy, women priests or women in the diaconate, he was immovable. Similarly on the use of condoms even to combat Aids. On homosexuality he was virulent. In 1986, he described it as a “strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”.

Where dissent was concerned he brooked no hostages. It extended to former colleagues such as Hans Küng. In 1966, at Küng’s instigation, the Catholic faculty at Germany’s Tübingen university appointed Fr Ratzinger professor of dogmatics. In 1979, Küng was stripped of his licence to teach because he challenged papal infallibility. In 1981, when Ratzinger became dean of the CDF, he upheld that decision.

In 1986, he stopped US priest Fr Charles Curran from teaching because of his views on sexuality and ethics. A Brazilian, Fr Leonardo Boff, was silenced twice by him, in 1985 and in 1991. Fr Robert Nugent and Sr Jeannine Gramick, who worked with gay people in the US, were sanctioned in 1999. In 1995, Sri Lankan theologian Fr Tissa Belasuriya was excommunicated by him over writings on Mary, original sin and the divinity of Christ. He was later reconciled with the church.

There were so many more.

There is also something deeply insidious about the methods he and Rome use to silence those who disagree, as we have seen in Ireland. You might say Rome has ways of making you “think with the mind of the church” (sentire com ecclesia), in that memorable phrase directed by Rome at Fr Tony Flannery last month as he was told“ . . . to a monastery go!”

The Irish Times has, for instance, been aware for years of the curt silencing of three other Irish priests/theologians as they sought their way to a more compassionate, Christian understanding of human life. All three belong to different religious congregations.

In all instances, the head of their congregation was summoned to the CDF in Rome after anonymous complaint. The congregation head was advised to bring the“dissident” into line. He in turn contacted the congregation head in Ireland. The “dissident” was summoned and confronted with his aberration.

Usually, at local level, the relevant head has been kind. The priest/theologian in each case has been torn between a need to articulate his convictions for the benefit of the distressed and the consequences this for his congregation. Each priest felt he had to accept silence.

In each case too, those of us in the media aware of it were asked not to write about this lest the sky fall and bring further misery on the already crushed. So Rome has had its way and through exploiting finer human emotions such as loyalty and respect. Clever? Yes, but hardly Christian.”

Like any other Institutionalized religion Catholicism demands that its followers adopt a particular way of expressing the faith along with a prepared set of beliefs. Religious institutions demand that dissent from church teachings is not acceptable and can be met with certain censures and even excommunication.  But how do these demands meet our understanding of God?  While a lot will depend on our cultural and family background the bible suggests that God gave us complete freedom to choose. Scripture tells us that God proposed only two primary conditions necessary to receive his daily blessings to be shared among all his people and that was ‘to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with your entire mind.  The second most important commandment is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself.’   We are free to accept or reject God’s offer of love.  Even when we reject God it does not mean that God stops loving us.  God’s love is unconditional.  Only a merciful God is able to accept us after we have rejected Him again and again in our broken condition. Should religious institutions not follow suit?  Neither is God’s salvation limited to the converted or the ‘religious’.  Scripture tells us “for he makes his sun to shine on bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil”.  Should religious institutions not follow suit?

People celebrate their love for God in many different ways, but some have been made to believe that God can only be reached by following a prescribed form of prayer or particular form of liturgy.  Yet Jesus tells us “There are many rooms in my Father’s house and I am going to prepare a place for you.  I would not tell you this if it were not so.  And after I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to myself, so that you will be where I am”.  There is no hint here about exclusivity instead Jesus speaks of the many rooms  where unconditional diversity brings us together in unity.  Should we think that failure to accept certain religious teachings is a sin and a rejection of God?  Then remember that God meets us where we are.   And know that when our heart is right so God will respect and judge our decision. Should religious institutions not follow suit? 

Recently I came across a blog which seems to put the primacy of conscience in its proper perspective. 

  The perfect Scriptural example using one’s God given conscience is Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac. To any objective observer, such an act would be murder! Can you imagine Sarah’s reaction if God had permitted the sacrifice to occur? Put yourself in Abraham’s place. How was Abraham certain that it was God, rather than his ego, who demanded the sacrifice of Isaac?

Should religious institutions not respect an individual's primacy of an informed conscience when they cannot obey their teachings?

Readers may also be interested in 'How dissenters from Galileo to John Courtney Murray have helped the church to see mare clearly' which orginally appeared in the U.S. Catholic, July 28, 2008 by Jesuit Fr. Robert J. McCLory under the title 'When Wrong Turns Out To Be Right'.