Liberal Catholics in the Age of Francis
My Sunday column discussed what Catholics on the political right should make of Pope Francis’s latest exhortation,
and how they should respond to a papacy that has been emphasizing the
church’s social teaching in language that Catholics with free-market
views might not necessarily be eager to embrace. The other,
equally-interesting question, of course is how Catholics of a more
liberal persuasion (politically and theologically) should respond to
Francis — or, perhaps more aptly, what they should be looking for,
hoping for, and working toward in a pontificate whose tone they mostly
find congenial, but whose substance has included reaffirmations of Catholic teaching on some of the culture-war issues dividing left and right.
There are a few possibilities here. There are many Catholics, as I’ve pointed out before, who dissent from church teaching on various issues in a “soft” way that doesn’t really shape their relationship to the church — and this population may be pretty content with a change in tone and emphasis (and press coverage!) that doesn’t otherwise lead to dramatic shifts. (This is roughly what John Allen has in mind when he describes Francis as potentially “a pope for the Catholic middle.”) Then, in an overlapping category, there are self-defined “liberal Catholics” for whom economic concerns are much more crucial to their self-definition than either moral or theological debates, and who are likely to be similarly content with a papacy that seems to be foregrounding and validating their issues even if it’s also reaffirming traditional doctrine on sex, marriage and the family.
Then at the opposite extreme there are liberal Catholics (and many lapsed and semi-lapsed Catholics) whose vision is more comprehensively hostile to the church as it has existed and exists, and whose temporary happiness with Pope Francis is likely to dissipate in the absence of the kind of sweeping, Protestantizing change that more orthodox believers consider not only undesirable but impossible. Where this category overlaps with the various secular and non-Catholic voices who have embraced the “Good Pope Francis” narrative, you can see the potential for an eventual large-scale backlash, of the kind that Joshua Keating hints at in a piece for Slate today, which ends up dismissing Francis’s grasp for a religious middle as all salesmanship and no substance, and the new pope himself as just another Vatican reactionary.
Then, finally, you have Catholics who are morally/culturally/theologically liberal but also realistic about the ways in which Catholicism can and cannot change — by which mean I mean that they want to see their church address and adapt to certain post-sexual revolution realities, but don’t expect or desire a revolution that suddenly makes every church-versus-culture conflict on these issues disappear. My (provisional) sense is that Francis is trying to invite liberal believers with this perspective into a kind of dialogue about what’s possible for the church. Consider, for instance, this passage from his latest exhortation, on the role of women in Catholicism:
The role of women in church governance is one such place. The possibility of ending the rule of celibacy (or at least expanding the exceptions), highlighted today by my colleague Bill Keller, is another. The possible changes being bruited to the rules surrounding communion for remarried Catholics is a potential third example. And no doubt there are more.
For my own part — if liberal Catholics don’t mind a little advice from a conservative — I think the first area is by the far the most promising, since it offers a way for the church to say, in effect, “yes and no” to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s: Yes to the dignity of women, yes to their further empowerment, but no to the idea that this dignity and empowerment depends on jettisoning Catholic (and biblical, and New Testament) ideals about sex and chastity, male-female difference, the indissolubility of marriage and the elevated place of celibacy in Christian life.
It’s true that a shift like, say, naming women as cardinals would be more innovative than allowing married priests, since the rule of celibacy has been altered by the church in the past and no woman has ever worn a red hat. (The question of female deacons in church history is more vexed, depending in part on the definition of the diaconate — though Pope Benedict’s 2009 clarification of that definition suggests certain openings.) But innovating within the bounds of tradition is better than returning to a discarded approach to priestly discipline just because the latter seems like the more painless change to make. And as I read the signs of the times — claiming no inspiration for that reading! — female cardinals seem like a more effective and potentially-warranted adaptation than surrendering the countersign provided by priestly celibacy at a time when Western society arguably needs it more than ever. (And when, it should be noted, the evidence that it’s actually warping the lives of men in holy orders is conspicuously lacking.)
Anyway, if the Inquisition (or one of my Traditionalist friends) comes knocking I’ll insist that this talk is just a thought experiment. (Though Mary Ann Cardinal Glendon has a certain ring to it …) But it’s the kind that liberal Catholics should be contemplating, as they try to bring something lasting out of the pleasant jolt that Francis’s rhetoric has given them.
There are a few possibilities here. There are many Catholics, as I’ve pointed out before, who dissent from church teaching on various issues in a “soft” way that doesn’t really shape their relationship to the church — and this population may be pretty content with a change in tone and emphasis (and press coverage!) that doesn’t otherwise lead to dramatic shifts. (This is roughly what John Allen has in mind when he describes Francis as potentially “a pope for the Catholic middle.”) Then, in an overlapping category, there are self-defined “liberal Catholics” for whom economic concerns are much more crucial to their self-definition than either moral or theological debates, and who are likely to be similarly content with a papacy that seems to be foregrounding and validating their issues even if it’s also reaffirming traditional doctrine on sex, marriage and the family.
Then at the opposite extreme there are liberal Catholics (and many lapsed and semi-lapsed Catholics) whose vision is more comprehensively hostile to the church as it has existed and exists, and whose temporary happiness with Pope Francis is likely to dissipate in the absence of the kind of sweeping, Protestantizing change that more orthodox believers consider not only undesirable but impossible. Where this category overlaps with the various secular and non-Catholic voices who have embraced the “Good Pope Francis” narrative, you can see the potential for an eventual large-scale backlash, of the kind that Joshua Keating hints at in a piece for Slate today, which ends up dismissing Francis’s grasp for a religious middle as all salesmanship and no substance, and the new pope himself as just another Vatican reactionary.
Then, finally, you have Catholics who are morally/culturally/theologically liberal but also realistic about the ways in which Catholicism can and cannot change — by which mean I mean that they want to see their church address and adapt to certain post-sexual revolution realities, but don’t expect or desire a revolution that suddenly makes every church-versus-culture conflict on these issues disappear. My (provisional) sense is that Francis is trying to invite liberal believers with this perspective into a kind of dialogue about what’s possible for the church. Consider, for instance, this passage from his latest exhortation, on the role of women in Catholicism:
Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded. The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general. It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness.” The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. In the Church, functions “do not favour the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others.” Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops. Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical”, it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members”. Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life.The suggestion here, addressed to all readers but especially to a certain kind of dissenter, is that there may be space for reform — for a fuller “recognition” of women within the church, and a fuller share in ecclesiastical “decision-making” — within the limits imposed by a male priesthood. Which suggests, in turn, that a plausible mission for liberal Catholicism in the age of Francis would be to identify such areas of reform, where the church could move in their direction without overturning settled doctrine, rewriting capital-T Tradition, or betraying the clear language of the gospels.
The role of women in church governance is one such place. The possibility of ending the rule of celibacy (or at least expanding the exceptions), highlighted today by my colleague Bill Keller, is another. The possible changes being bruited to the rules surrounding communion for remarried Catholics is a potential third example. And no doubt there are more.
For my own part — if liberal Catholics don’t mind a little advice from a conservative — I think the first area is by the far the most promising, since it offers a way for the church to say, in effect, “yes and no” to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s: Yes to the dignity of women, yes to their further empowerment, but no to the idea that this dignity and empowerment depends on jettisoning Catholic (and biblical, and New Testament) ideals about sex and chastity, male-female difference, the indissolubility of marriage and the elevated place of celibacy in Christian life.
It’s true that a shift like, say, naming women as cardinals would be more innovative than allowing married priests, since the rule of celibacy has been altered by the church in the past and no woman has ever worn a red hat. (The question of female deacons in church history is more vexed, depending in part on the definition of the diaconate — though Pope Benedict’s 2009 clarification of that definition suggests certain openings.) But innovating within the bounds of tradition is better than returning to a discarded approach to priestly discipline just because the latter seems like the more painless change to make. And as I read the signs of the times — claiming no inspiration for that reading! — female cardinals seem like a more effective and potentially-warranted adaptation than surrendering the countersign provided by priestly celibacy at a time when Western society arguably needs it more than ever. (And when, it should be noted, the evidence that it’s actually warping the lives of men in holy orders is conspicuously lacking.)
Anyway, if the Inquisition (or one of my Traditionalist friends) comes knocking I’ll insist that this talk is just a thought experiment. (Though Mary Ann Cardinal Glendon has a certain ring to it …) But it’s the kind that liberal Catholics should be contemplating, as they try to bring something lasting out of the pleasant jolt that Francis’s rhetoric has given them.
No comments:
Post a Comment