At Vox Nova, Kelly Wilson has published an extended examination of the dilemma posed to those who find themselves struggling with Church teaching, whether because they authentically lack conviction or understanding or deal doubt from a more cynical place, as in the case of ideologically-driven op-ed columnists.
Importantly, Wilson begins by pointing out that “the Church is teacher even in those matters which do not demand the absolute assent of faith” (emphasis added). Even those things which lie, as readily admitted in many a papal social encyclical, beyond the Magisterium’s strict sphere of competence are still of importance in the shaping of that much-vaunted individual conscience. What he’s getting at here is that Church teaching is more than a list of “do”s and “don’t”s, whether you ascribe to it or not; it’s more complicated (and more challenging).
With this in mind, Wilson responds more concretely to a recent editorial in which a prominent newspaper editor called upon his fellow Catholics to “just leave” the Church if they find themselves in disagreement with its teachings. Such a model, of course, recalls a consumeristic mindset (“unhappy with your insurance provider? Switch to us and we’ll lower your rate!”) and not the proper disposition toward membership in a religious body. But it’s wrong in the technicalities, too:
That those who “disagree with the Church’s teachings should leave the Church [and that] if they won’t go voluntarily, they should be expelled” is not what the Church asks for such persons. My question to Bruce Burgess (and it can extend to those who agree with him) surrounds why he has subordinated the teaching authority of the Church — why he has subordinated representatives of the Church’s teaching authority like the Canadian or German Bishops — to Bill Keller, a former editor of the New York Times.
[. . .] this is complicated territory. Several decades ago, the CDF revised the Profession of Faith to be taken by those identified in Canon Law. Unchanged was the first and longest paragraph, but after this, three further paragraphs were added. The first deals with teachings divinely revealed, and the second, with teachings proposed definitively (those inseparably connected with such divine revelation). The third paragraph deals with teachings neither divinely revealed, nor inseparably connected with revelation, but which nonetheless emerge from the authoritative exercise of the teaching office of the Roman Pontiff or College of Bishops. Ecclesiologists tend to use these added paragraphs as their framework for articulating gradations within Church teaching, or, to put differently, the weight with which a certain teaching is proposed.
What’s that? The Catholic Church assigns different weights to different teachings? And it distinguishes between assent of the intellect and assent of the will? That’s the kind of nuance you won’t find, unfortunately, in some of America’s “leading” publications.
Wilson concludes with a note of charity and a more serious summons than his interlocutors, who urge doubters to simply abjure their faith. He finishes:
Individual Catholics, instead of leaving the Church should, I think, use the occasions of their disagreements to reflect on the Church as the bride of Christ. [Commentators like Keller and Burgess] would have Catholic persons distance [themselves] from the Eucharist when the Church does not ask such a person for this. [They] have, I presume, unintentionally misrepresented Catholic teaching, but I will not make [their] mistake and suggest you leave.
Read the rest of his essay here.
June 25th, 2012 | 2:25 pm
Saying “if you don’t agree with this, you should just leave” is not necessarily consumeristic. To be consumeristic would be to add “and find someplace that you like better.” But if you are not assuming that the person should seek out a preference, but merely refrain from associating with that to which he does not subscribe, that is not “consumeristic,” it is merely a call to integrity in your associations (if integrity really requires that, which is the point under dispute in the article.)
That’s a minor point, though — I am not attacking Kelly Wilson’s overall take.
June 25th, 2012 | 3:10 pm
I am always amazed when Catholics who believe themselves to belong to the “one true faith” and believe (to some extent or another, with varying interpretations) that “outside the Church there is no salvation” would try to drive people away! Surely their mission as believing Catholics is to try to draw as many people in as possible, not try to get rid of the people who annoy them.
From the viewpoint of “conservative” Catholics, one would think that the (bad) “liberal” Catholics are exactly equivalent to the “sinners and tax collectors” Jesus fraternized with.
The sinners and tax collectors were not Gentiles. Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The sinners and tax collectors were lax or nonobservant Jews. One would think that lax or nonobservant Catholics should be the first concern of faithful Catholics.
June 25th, 2012 | 3:37 pm
One of the strange things, though, about Catholicism is that on the one hand, many people are attracted to it because they feel they can relax into the arms of the Church as a sure and certain guide to the truth, watched over by the Holy Spirit, and infallible. But then one gets to things like the “hierarchy of truths,” and the various levels of assent. One must accept practically everything, but some things require more serious assent than others.
Elsewhere, I have earned the enmity of a small but significant number of people by taking a contrarian view on the controversy over the books Just Love, asking again and again what kind of assent is demanded of Catholics to the teachings on sexuality (masturbation), the indissolubility of marriage, and same-sex unions. I reproduced a chart from page 126 of By What Authority?: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful by Richard R. Gaillardetz identifying four LEVELS OF CHURCH TEACHING and the Response of the Believer:
_______________
DOGMA
Assent of faith: The believer makes an act of faith, trusting that this teaching is revealed by God.
DEFINITIVE DOCTRINE
Firm Acceptance: The believer “accepts and holds” these teachings to be true.
AUTHORITATIVE DOCTRINE
A Religious Docility of Will and Intellect: The believer strives to assimilate a teaching of the Church into his or her religious stance, while recognizing the remote possibility of church error.
PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS OF CHURCH
DOCTRINE, CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND PRUDENTIAL ADMONITIONS
Conscientious Obedience: The believer obeys the spirit of any church law or disciplinary action which does not leave to sin, even when questioning the ultimate value or wisdom of the law or action.
_________________
Although you have to accept everything, only some things are infallible, and while you have to accept everything else, somehow for the non-infallible truths, the acceptance is different. In any case, the teachings contradicted in Just Love seem to me to be either Definitive Doctrine and Authoritative Doctrine, and I continue to wonder to what extent a faithful Catholic can contradict them.
In any case, I am honestly baffled by the contradictions (or perhaps tensions would be a better word) in Catholic teaching, which must be accepted, and yet there are levels of truth. One would think that if something is true, it’s true, but this is not exactly the case when there is a hierarchy of truths. Perhaps someone should write a book called A Church which Can and Cannot Demand Assent.
June 25th, 2012 | 3:45 pm
Well, this is a northern European Catholic problem (and American Catholicism is heavily inflected by northern European culture). In really Roman Catholicism, there is not this discomfort over the gap between norms and reality; rather, everyone is part of the family, and we muddle along. Really Roman Catholicism is humane in not having an expectation of high correlation between norms and reality. By the same token, this makes it vulnerable to hypocrisy and excessive deference to persons. (All cultures are two-edged swords; you pick your poison.)
June 25th, 2012 | 4:36 pm
“One would think that if something is true, it’s true, but this is not exactly the case when there is a hierarchy of truths.”
Apparently, David is not aware that the Law of the Excluded Middle is not the only possibility. But even that is not what is going on in Catholicism, religion not being mathematics.
When I worked in intelligence, we always had a confidence value associated with the information we provided ranging from “we’re sure” down to “it’s a good possibility”. The levels of “truths”, I suspect are more of that type.
One might remember the saying, “There known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.” Though credited with it, Rumsfeld did not originate it. It’s from the intelligence field. Politics being what it is, I lost a lot of respect for the media when they made fun of it, demonstrating their own ignorance.
June 26th, 2012 | 2:42 am
David Nickol,
The tension you noticed is a consequence of paradoxical nature of the Catholic Church-it is both a divine and a human institution.
Some truths are revealed, by Jesus Himself. Other truths are inspired by Holy Spirit and yet others are product of human reason struggling with the divine truths.
A little book to read is Paradoxes of Catholicism by Benson.
June 26th, 2012 | 7:40 am
Generally speaking you can only find that sort of “love it or leave it” attitude on the Internet. When you speak with a real priest who deals with real people’s struggles in the real world you almost always find a much gentler attitude. Perhaps that’s because the priest isn’t just mouthing off on a blog, but actually believes he has accountability to God for people’s souls.
If you want to know what Catholicism is about, go to mass and go to confession and don’t listen to the garbage on blogs.
June 26th, 2012 | 7:53 am
David Nickol
Whilst all truths are equally true, the motive of credulity may be different. In the case of doctrines divinely revealed, as the doctrine of the one Person in Christ, one believes them on the authority of God who speaks. On the other hand, one believes Ephesus I was a general council and that Ephesus II was not, but, rather, a “robber synod,” on the faith of the Church and her promised divine guidance.
What the article does bring out is that any attempt to define the Church by its teaching, or the faithful by their tenets is bound to end in tautology – “The Catholic faith is the faith that Catholics hold” only works, if “Catholics” has a definite meaning in extension and, if “Catholics” is then defined as “those who hold the Catholic faith,” one has produced, not a test, but a vicious circle.
In fact, “Catholics” have traditionally been defined as “those in visible communion with the see of Rome.” This excludes those who refuse communion with the Pope or bishops in communion with him on the one hand and those that Rome has excommunicated on the other.
It is a test remarkably easy of application.
June 26th, 2012 | 10:00 am
To quote Fr. Neuhaus when he was addressing a similar issue,”I did not become Catholic to become protestant”.
June 26th, 2012 | 12:01 pm
David Nickol
You are correct that we must always be concerned about those who are lax or are nonobservant Catholics. However, the Catholics being spoken about here are the militant kind who are staying only in the church to change it. They are trying to lead others away from the church’s teachings and very often causing public scandal and dissension. Yes, Jesus was a very compassionate person, but do you really think he would have supported apostles who knowingly and directly preached the opposite message of Him? Jesus is the one and only truth, there is not my truth and your truth or whatever makes you feel good about yourself. Either the Catholic church was founded by Jesus and was charged to speak His truth, which is the church’s claim, or it is just an organization which sways and bends with public opinion. That is what is at stake here!
June 27th, 2012 | 3:47 am
DK
Speaking of those bishops who were “tolerating for Christ’s name’s sake the false apostles,” St Augustine says [Ep 43:22] “Nevertheless, even if they were actually committed, and that under our own eyes, and we bore with them for the sake of unity, letting the tares alone on account of the wheat, whosoever with open heart receives the Holy Scriptures would pronounce us not only free from blame, but worthy of no small praise.”
June 27th, 2012 | 11:58 pm
I want to be very respectful here and I hope not to be condemned for having a contrary view. However, it seems the major focus in both the piece above and the comments is whether the Church is asking people to go. There are vague references to His Holiness seeking a smaller, more devout Church & of course, Bill Donohue. But really, the point the editorialists are making is that Catholics should choose to leave if they are so at odds with the hierarchy — not that the hierarchy is asking them to leave. You can quote St. Augustine or talk about layers of truth. The heart of the dissenters is not about legalistic distinctions but about love, gentleness and living Jesus. It is the lack of this coming from the hierarchy that calls many to leave. Please be respectful of that and of my comments. Thank you.
June 28th, 2012 | 2:38 pm
Francis,
By your comments I can see you truly want to be loving to everyone, but it seems you are still missing the point. This is the crucial question: Do you assent to the authority of the pope and the bishops? If you can’t assent and publicly dissent, is it time to go? To be honest I am not sure what is best, but to stay in the church which makes you so angry, rebellious, and unhappy doesn’t seem to make much sense. It is like someone being in the Girl Scouts and then saying” I hate working for the badges and that stupid pledge has got to go.Let’s see if I can convince some of the other girls to join me in changing all of this. We are surely being victimized in this situation.” The others girls who are happily gathering their badges and love the whole program find their group in a constant state of turmoil and confusion. Using your definition, Is this showing love, gentleness, and living Jesus? Of course, an organization is not the same as one’s religion, but no one is forced to join or stay in the Catholic church. From my personal experience, dissenting Catholics preach a lot about being so loving, but they refuse to see their actions are anything but loving to everyone else.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact