Pastoral letter
J. Theodore Schuerzinger
confirmed yesterday? I wanted to see the exact wording of what was
being debated. If you could either post a copy to the net or email it
to me directly, I'd appreciate it.
BTW -- When I read the AP's description of the conference, I got two
impressions:
1) If the letter was 'voted down' (if that's the correct term for it),
it would be one more step toward the ordination of women.
2) The Bishops are deeply divided about the ordination of women.
Personally, I don't think either of the above statements are true --
those were just my gut reactions on reading the article. Is this just
one more example of our 'unbiased' media? :-)
--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
PS: Regardless of what J.J. and Mr. Yadallee (sp?) may think and hope,
the Church will NOT accept women as priests for a VERY long time, if
ever.
Len Howard
Church splits off from Rome?........Just a thought for consideration.
The ordination of women and stand on birth control are two areas of
great disagreement. I would not be at all surprised to see this split
take place in my lifetime. And I am 59 now.
Shalom, Len Howard OSL
t...@pegasus.com
Bryan D. Boyle
>Ted, How long do you think it will be before the American Catholic
>Church splits off from Rome?......
In some major respects, it already has, IMHO.
Steve Creps
>Church splits off from Rome?........Just a thought for consideration.
>The ordination of women and stand on birth control are two areas of
>great disagreement. I would not be at all surprised to see this split
>take place in my lifetime. And I am 59 now.
I disagree very much. For one thing, on both of those issues
(certainly on women's ordination) the vast majority of American
bishops agree with the teaching of the universal Church. The latter
is such a minor issue theologically that no one is going to form a new
church over it.
The disagreement of which you speak is more among the laity and
some priests.
- - - - - - - - - -
Steve Creps, Indiana University
cr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Edward J. Branley
Do you really think so? I can see defections to the Episcopal Church, but an
actual break with the RCC? I dunno. There are so many religious orders whose
roots go back to Rome directly that I can't imagine the American contingents of
those orders splitting. The amount of inertia involved here is so great.
Besides, most people don't see birth control as a 'voting' issue, if you will.
Most American Catholics simply ignore the Vatican on this one. Ordination of
women is important to those women who are called to a vocation, but I can't see
whole parishes and dioceses seizing this as an issue upon which to base a
split. The women called to a vocation are leaving the Church as individuals
anyway, to join churches where their vocation is recognized.
No, it'll take more than just those two to bring about a split. Too many
schools, too much money and property involved. Of course, when there are no
more priests in this country, maybe things will come to a head.
|Edward J. Branley ele...@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA +1-504-455-5087|
Edward J. Branley
> In article <921118083...@pegasus.com> Len Howard <t...@PEGASUS.COM> writ
> >Ted, How long do you think it will be before the American Catholic
> >Church splits off from Rome?......
>
> In some major respects, it already has, IMHO.
>
Maybe so, but the Pope continues to appoint and consecrate bishops for this
country, and those bishops owe their obedience to the Pope. That's not going
to change for a long time, since the Holy Father is appointing bishops who are
essentially conservatives.
Len Howard
the Church of Rome, and the Anglican church. The COR is a 'top down'
authority, while the Anglican church is a 'bottom up' authority, with
the Episcopos deriving their authority from the people.
Is it really your contention that the laity of the Roman Church does
not receive the action of the Holy Spirit? Is communion with God
relegated only to the Bishops and above? Obviously these are
rhetorical questions, but to blithely disregard the expressed opinions
of the laity and many priests as unworthy of notice is, IMO, not in
keeping with Paul's teachins about the various parts of the Body of
Christ. Without the people there is no Church.
Len Howard
are only the tip of the iceburg. You state the real problem yourself
when you say "Most American Catholics simply ignore the Vatican on
this one." How much more 'ignoring' is it going to take before the
American Catholic Church gets fed up with trying to follow
pronouncements from a body that is not listening to what the Body of
Christ is saying. And the lack of priests is going to push the issue.
Edward J. Branley
Len, I don't see 'ignoring' the Vatican as being the same as the kind of
activism that leads to schism. We don't have a Luther nailing his views to the
door or the church. Look at the pastoral letter issue. Rather than produce a
document that would encourage more activism, the bishops let it drop. It seems
to me that it's more of a matter of when the Vatican is going to kick the
American Church out, rather than us leaving.
NPR's 'All Things Considered' had a theology prof from Notre Dame on this
afternoon. His take on ordaining women was an interesting one. He pointed out
that the Holy Father is a Slav, and is more interested in events in Eastern
Europe/Eurasia than in the Western Hemisphere. This prof (can't for the life
of me remember his name) said that the Pope was more concerned with re-uniting
the Roman Church with the Orthodox Church, therefore he'll never bend to
ordaining women. Perhaps a Pope from Western Europe or another continent would
have a different attitude???
Len Howard
that the American Catholic Church is more likely to be kicked out than
split away. It is not really our nature to take precipitate action,
but to be more willing to put up with a lot. But that idea of the
Pope being a Slav is most interesting.
Edward J. Branley
Yeah, it definitely turned my head when I heard it. Explains a lot. If one
follows the line of thinking out, we won't quit, and he's not interested, so
things will just trudge along...hmmm...
Steve Creps
>Steve, you illustrate very well one of the main differences between
>the Church of Rome, and the Anglican church. The COR is a 'top down'
>authority, while the Anglican church is a 'bottom up' authority, with
>the Episcopos deriving their authority from the people.
If you mean the Catholic Church, yes, it is a top-down Church. The
authority comes down from God to the bishops, then down to the priests
and the people (God->bishops->priests->people). The problem I have
with a church in which the authority comes from the people is that it
seems to imply that _God's_ authority comes from the people
(people->priests->bishops->God).
This becomes even more evident when the people are able to change
the church's doctrines.
>Is it really your contention that the laity of the Roman Church does
>not receive the action of the Holy Spirit? Is communion with God
>relegated only to the Bishops and above? Obviously these are
Those are straw men. I'm not saying any such thing. The Holy
Spirit does, however, act in a different way on those entrusted with
the care of His Church.
>rhetorical questions, but to blithely disregard the expressed opinions
>of the laity and many priests as unworthy of notice is, IMO, not in
>keeping with Paul's teachins about the various parts of the Body of
>Christ. Without the people there is no Church.
Wrong. Without Christ there is no Church, but your point is moot
anyway, because there are and will always be (don't forget the Church
Triumphant) people in the Church. Yes, there are various parts of the
Body of Christ. But as I recall, Paul says this: "Are all apostles?
are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?" The
answer to these rhetorical questions is the same: no. The bishops are
those who are called to be teachers, not the laity (don't say "what
about catechists, etc.?"; they have no authority except from their
bishops).
john ocallaghan
Without the head, the body spasms in death.
Peace,
John
Len Howard
Catholic Church such as was taken by the ECUSA? Remember that we have
authorized ordination of women since 1977, and the Anglican Church
(our mother church) only approved it last week.
But I guess there is a different authoritarian relationship isn't
there? Seems too bad that a group of men half way round the world who
speak a different language can have such an influence on the American
Church, eh?
Len Howard
God->laity->Deacons->Priests->Bishops, with each deriving their
authority from those on the left. I realize it is upside down to you,
but that is the way it is in the Episcopal Church. There are
obviously other aspects to the relationships but when we draw arrows,
the relationship of the laity and God is the important one, and God
does not only speak to the laity thru the Priest, but directly.
Deacons vow obedience to their Bishop but are not relieved of
responsibility for their own actions in relationship to God, and their
responsibility to the laity from which they were called. It is a
TOTALLY different situation, which impacts greatly on how we think and
believe in the Episcopal Church.
Shalom, Steve Len Howard OSL
t...@pegasus.com
J Scott Berg
> But I guess there is a different authoritarian relationship isn't
> there? Seems too bad that a group of men half way round the world who
> speak a different language can have such an influence on the American
> Church, eh?
I'm all for it. Doctrine often has a cultural independence and
universality to it, so I'm thrilled with the idea that people who
aren't my next-door neighbors have something to do with its
formulation.
Look at Paul's letters. First Corinthians is a great example. He's
not looking for the people's approval for what he's telling them. No,
in fact he is TELLING them what is right. He reminds them to stick to
what they were taught!
Note that there is certainly support for the statement that the Church
"as a whole" cannot err in matters of faith and morals. But that "as
a whole" must include the hierarchy as well as the laity.
Anyhow, since I didn't see the post that started this reply chain, I'm
probably way off the topic anyhow. Hope this was helpful. God bless
-Scott Berg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed here are, of course, my own and nobody else's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Berg
email: AL...@slac.stanford.edu
real mail: Varian Physics
Stanford CA 94305-4060
phone: (415) 926-4732 (w)
(415) 326-2631 (h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Lang
> If you mean the Catholic Church, yes, it is a top-down Church. The
>authority comes down from God to the bishops, then down to the priests
>and the people (God->bishops->priests->people). The problem I have
>with a church in which the authority comes from the people is that it
>seems to imply that _God's_ authority comes from the people
>(people->priests->bishops->God).
The Catholic Church is very top down, but whether it was instituted that
way or became that way due to historical circumstances is subject to
debate, I think.
Another hidden assumption you seem to have above is that the priests
and bishops must be between the people and God. What's wrong with
God->people->priests->bishops ?
> This becomes even more evident when the people are able to change
>the church's doctrines.
Many doctrines, particularly moral precepts, arise out of and are
applicable to particular cultures at particular points in history.
When the context changes within which those doctrines had meaning,
the doctrine must be changed too. Not everything the Church teaches
is immutable truth. One of the great theological achievements of this
century (IMHO) has been the growth of the understanding of how historical
circumstances condition the Church's teaching and influence doctrinal
formulations.
>>rhetorical questions, but to blithely disregard the expressed opinions
>>of the laity and many priests as unworthy of notice is, IMO, not in
>>keeping with Paul's teachins about the various parts of the Body of
>>Christ. Without the people there is no Church.
>
> Wrong. Without Christ there is no Church, but your point is moot
>anyway, because there are and will always be (don't forget the Church
>Triumphant) people in the Church. Yes, there are various parts of the
>Body of Christ. But as I recall, Paul says this: "Are all apostles?
>are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?" The
>answer to these rhetorical questions is the same: no. The bishops are
>those who are called to be teachers, not the laity (don't say "what
>about catechists, etc.?"; they have no authority except from their
>bishops).
As Catholics, we do not believe that bishops have what's known as
"infused knowledge," i.e. our Lord's teachings are not engraved into a
man's mind when he's consecrated a bishop. He has to learn them the
same way we all do: through prayer and study. Also, you draw too
sharply the distinction between teachers and learners. Vatican II
called for dialogue not only with the world but within the Church itself
between the bishops and priests on the one hand, and the faithful on
the other. All Catholics share in the dialogic teaching and learning
process by which the Church comes to fuller understanding of Christ and
his truth.
Likewise, in saying the laity have no authority to teach except from
their bishops, you misrepresent the genuine role the laity have in the
Church's salvific and evangelical mission, clearly taught by the Council
Fathers at Vatican II.
You may want to read the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) as well as the Decree on the Apostolate
of the Laity.
Ray Lang
la...@cs.tulane.edu
Raymond Lang
What's your point, John? Christ is the head of the Church. Has
anyone proposed changing that arrangement? The Pope is the visible
head of the Church. Has anyone said he shouldn't be?
Ray Lang
la...@cs.tulane.edu
Steve Creps
Too bad? Thank God!
Steve Creps
Len, I hope the tone of my last message on this wasn't too harsh.
I kind of rushed it out in a hurry, and later it looked worse than I
thought.
Anyway, I later thought that your picture of the model would indeed
be what you just wrote above. I don't agree with it, but I do
understand it. Sort of the Ross Perot model of the Church 8-). The
trouble I see with it is that it makes it harder for everyone to
believe the same things.
--Steve
Len Howard
in the Episcopal Church, which is the source of its inclusiveness. We
can accomodate almost from Calvin to The Roman Catholic Church in
doctrinal belief, and Anglican theologians are constantly
reconstructing doctrine. Everyone in the Episcopal Church believes
only a few things, God, the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Real
Presence, the holdings of the Nicene Creed, and the communal nature of
the Church. I have been trying to get down to the core beliefs, and
this is what I have come up with. I hope others will comment on this
from their Anglican Point of View. And thanks for understanding my
point of view even if you don't agree with it. We are always free to
agree to disagree and go on to something else.
Martin Barry
>Steve, my model for the Episcopal Church would be:
> God->laity->Deacons->Priests->Bishops, with each deriving their
>authority from those on the left. I realize it is upside down to you,
>but that is the way it is in the Episcopal Church.
Earlier, Steve Creps had another version:
> The
> authority comes down from God to the bishops, then down to the priests
> and the people (God->bishops->priests->people)
As ecclesiology goes, these are both, I submit, grossly impoverished. A
better model would reflect the way in which the Spirit informs all 'levels'
of the Church, and the way in which a common faith binds all the people of
God. In other words, our model requires arrows linking each of the four
components to each of the other three, and in both directions. (No, I'm not
going to draw it.)
Len Howard's model leads to a church, I respectfully suggest, in which
secular issues determine the agenda; Steve Creps's model reflects the
thinking of a fringe Catholicism that has held sway at various periods of
Church history, notably around the time that the Papacy was being stripped
of temporal power (i.e. in mid-to-late nineteenth century Italy). The way
the Church has functioned throughout most of its history is, I think, more
like the model I have described.
Martin Barry.
Stephen Barr
correct that the Faith is the faith of the whole church
which all share equally. Theology does speak of the
"sense of the faithful". It would certainly be wrong
to deny that any Christian can enrich the Church with
his or her insights, and even more with the way he or
she lives the faith. Faith is something to be lived and
preached as well as believed. The laity are supposed to
play a role in living and teaching the faith. And
certainly the Spirit operates on every level. Exaggerated
or oversimplified accounts of both episcopal authority
and the sense of the faithful are possible. It is not
clear to me that there is a real argument here or that
anyone has said anything wrong. For example, Steve Creps
said nothing that I could detect that in anyway denied
the reality of the sense of the faithful or of the
action of the Spirit at every level of the Church. Rereading
carefully what he said, I don't think he was drawing arrows
showing the action of the Spirit or the various ways
different levels relate to each other. He seemed to be
discussing the narrower issue of doctrinal and governing
"authority". Indeed he used that word. I think there can
be little doubt that the bishops exercise a certain kind
of authority which they receive from God and exercise
over the laity. For example, the power to bind and loose
and to forgive sins was granted by Christ to to the
apostles. The layman simply cannot impart sacramental
absolution. So certain important kinds of power and
authority do reside in the episcopate and the clergy,
are from God and not at all from the laity as such. Of
course, even in exercising these kinds of power the
bishop or priest is acting in behalf of the whole Church,
in place of the whole Church. Also in a very real sense
the Pope has no more power doctrinally than the layman:
he is bound to accept the same faith that you and I share.
He has no power over doctrine. He must hand on what he
has received. He is a servant of the gospel.
I also cannot detect the ultramontanism that Mr.
Barry sees in Steve Creps' statements. The tendency
which is often associated with the middle or late 19th
century was toward a very high view of the pope's
authority, even at the expense of the authority proper
to the bishops. Rereading Steve Creps' statement it
refers to God---> bishops---->priests--->laity. The pope
is not even mentioned! He sounds more like a conciliarist
than an ultramontanist! The above diagram is a very fair
summary of the ecclesiology of, for example, St. Ignatius
of Antioch, or of St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Indeed I can find
numerous statements in the New Testament regarding the
authority of apostles, or those chosen by them. I cannot
think of any suggesting that authority flows from laity
to bishop or apostle.
Indeed it can be said that power or authority
flow from the Church as a whole to the bishops,
they receive this power from the Church at ordination.
But though it comes from the Church it is vested in the
bishops. Anyway, I can't find anything wrong in what
the other Steve said. Steve Barr.
Len Howard
the depiction was grossly impoverished. But I was trying to make a
point for Steve that God does not speak to us thru the priests and
bishops. Certainly, as you said, God speaks to each of us, and at
whatever level they occupy. The Bishop has ecclesiastical authority
over the Diocese, and I will vow obedience to him as a deacon. The
rector of the parish has ecclesiastical authority for his parish,
subject to the bishop but very autonomous occasionally.
If you read the Episcopal Life, you will see that secular issues
very much determine the agenda of the church. All I can say is the
Church is in the world, and cannot hold itself aloof. Episcopalians
are vitally involved in each of these issues. And I submit that the
Church of Rome does not hesitate to become involved in some secular
issues also, thank God.
The main point I was trying to make is that the Episcopal model
depicts revelation as comin from three sources, Sacred Scripture,
Tradition of the Church and Church Fathers, and Right Reason. These
three legs of the tripod are equal, and no one is supreme. This
involves each Episcopalian in the decision making process to a greater
extent that Steve seems to indicate is present for a Roman Catholic.
In his view, a Roman Catholic believes what the majesterium dictates
and "Rome has spoken!". Well, as you can see from the woman's
ordination issue, the Episcopal Church does not work that way.
But our goal is still the same, Martin. We seek to serve God, find
God in all people and love our neighbor as ourself. And we love God
with all our hearts, minds and spirit. What else is there?
Haig Kasab
>In article <...> Len Howard <t...@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>>Steve, you illustrate very well one of the main differences between
>>the Church of Rome, and the Anglican church. The COR is a 'top down'
>>authority, while the Anglican church is a 'bottom up' authority, with
>>the Episcopos deriving their authority from the people.
>
>authority comes down from God to the bishops, then down to the priests
>with a church in which the authority comes from the people is that it
>seems to imply that _God's_ authority comes from the people
>(people->priests->bishops->God).
>the church's doctrines.
Actually, Steve, your statement is only true if you assume that a
"bottom-up" structure must always reverse the hierarchical structure of the
Roman Catholic Church (God->bishops->priests->people). My understanding of
the way things work in "bottom-up" structures, e.g., Congregationalism, is
that the authority works this way: (God->people->priests->bishops). So,
God's authority is given to the people, who then grant the authority to
those higher in the hierarchy. To paraphrase: No government can stand that
does not draw its support from the will of the people. Why would this be
any different for a religious government (i.e., the hierarchy)?
--
Haig Kasab Internet: ka...@cae.wisc.edu
"Even the Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"
_The Merchant of Venice_ I,iii,99
The NSF and UW--Madison don't speak for me, nor I for them.
Steve Creps
>The Catholic Church is very top down, but whether it was instituted that
>way or became that way due to historical circumstances is subject to
>debate, I think.
Well, I agree with that, insofar as I've debated it often with
Protestants. Debate among Catholics, however, is another matter, as I
believe it contradicts the Church. The New Testament has many
examples supporting the hierarchical structure of the Church and
authority of the leaders.
>Another hidden assumption you seem to have above is that the priests
>and bishops must be between the people and God. What's wrong with
>God->people->priests->bishops ?
Then why have priests and bishops? Lest someone forget the
subject, we're talking about the hierarchy of teaching authority. I
don't mean that the laity are incapable of praying directly to God, or
anything like that.
>> This becomes even more evident when the people are able to change
>>the church's doctrines.
>
>Many doctrines, particularly moral precepts, arise out of and are
>applicable to particular cultures at particular points in history.
>When the context changes within which those doctrines had meaning,
>the doctrine must be changed too. Not everything the Church teaches
>is immutable truth. One of the great theological achievements of this
>century (IMHO) has been the growth of the understanding of how historical
>circumstances condition the Church's teaching and influence doctrinal
>formulations.
That can be dangerous, in that it can lead to Modernism.
>As Catholics, we do not believe that bishops have what's known as
>"infused knowledge," i.e. our Lord's teachings are not engraved into a
>man's mind when he's consecrated a bishop. He has to learn them the
>same way we all do: through prayer and study. Also, you draw too
>sharply the distinction between teachers and learners. Vatican II
>called for dialogue not only with the world but within the Church itself
>between the bishops and priests on the one hand, and the faithful on
>the other. All Catholics share in the dialogic teaching and learning
>process by which the Church comes to fuller understanding of Christ and
>his truth.
But Vatican II also said that when the bishops have made a
teaching, the people are supposed to assent to it. Dialogue is not
the same as debate, or better yet, outright contradiction, which is
what we too often have these days.
>Likewise, in saying the laity have no authority to teach except from
>their bishops, you misrepresent the genuine role the laity have in the
>Church's salvific and evangelical mission, clearly taught by the Council
>Fathers at Vatican II.
You may have misunderstood my meaning. I didn't mean that the
laity need permission from the bishop to teach (although in some cases
this is actually true), but rather that they may not contradict their
bishop's teaching.
>You may want to read the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
>Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) as well as the Decree on the Apostolate
>of the Laity.
Thanks, I'll take a look at them. I'm emphasizing some things,
however, because some people are ignoring them. That may make it seem
to some like I'm overemphasizing them.
J Scott Berg
much of the context, but I saw something I wanted to make a statment
about...
> In article <1992Nov22.0...@cs.tulane.edu> la...@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond
> Lang) writes:
> >Another hidden assumption you seem to have above is that the priests
> >and bishops must be between the people and God. What's wrong with
> >God->people->priests->bishops ?
Part of our (RC) understanding of the Church is that it itself is a
"sacrament." It is the sacrament of Christ here on Earth. In other
words, since Christ's glorified body is in heaven, He chooses to
manifest Himself in a form that we can get a good grasp on--the
Church. The teaching authority of the Church is a reflection of
Christ's authority to teach us. It's not completely correct to
identify the two, and exactly what I want to say is currently escaping
me.
Thus, the teaching authority that the bishops have is the visible
manifestation on Earth of God's authority. Thus the God->bishops
thing that somebody did. This in no way dimishes God's ability to
affect all parts of that "chain," wherever you put your arrows.
For a much more coherent and correct version of this, see Edward
Schillebeeckx's (I must have spelled this wrong) book "Christ, the
Sacrament of the Encounter with God." Sheed & Ward publishes a
paperback version of this. This was written before Schillebeeckx got
himself into hot water, and as far as I can tell is considered
terribly orthodox.
Raymond Lang
>In article <1992Nov22.0...@cs.tulane.edu> la...@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>The Catholic Church is very top down, but whether it was instituted that
>>way or became that way due to historical circumstances is subject to
>>debate, I think.
>
> Well, I agree with that, insofar as I've debated it often with
>Protestants. Debate among Catholics, however, is another matter, as I
>believe it contradicts the Church. The New Testament has many
>examples supporting the hierarchical structure of the Church and
>authority of the leaders.
There's also evidence of shared authority and community responsibility.
Likewise, there's nothing to suggest that Jesus gave the apostles an
organizational chart in the shape of a pyramid with the Pope at the top.
We have to be careful not to elevate our own opinions to the level
of dogma. In the above, you come close to saying that since _you_ believe
it, the question is not open to debate among Catholics.
>>Many doctrines, particularly moral precepts, arise out of and are
>>applicable to particular cultures at particular points in history.
>>When the context changes within which those doctrines had meaning,
>>the doctrine must be changed too. Not everything the Church teaches
>>is immutable truth. One of the great theological achievements of this
>>century (IMHO) has been the growth of the understanding of how historical
>>circumstances condition the Church's teaching and influence doctrinal
>>formulations.
>
> That can be dangerous, in that it can lead to Modernism.
Well, since you mentioned the "M" word, I'm going to take the
opportunity to say a few things about it. I used to get slammed
as a "modernist" on Joe Buehler's list before I unsubscribed in
disgust at the arrogant phariseeism that passes for Catholicism
around there. Anyway, I took the trouble to read up on what I
was being accused of. It's a sad chapter in Church history and
contains a lesson for today's prelates.
The notion that at least some of the church's teachings are
historically conditioned was probably first mentioned in the
early years of this century by those who sought to express
Catholicism in ways that would make sense to the modern
mind.
Those theologians were never really an organized movement,
however; and the pejorative epithet "modernism" was applied
to a set of rather broad, loosely connected ideas. The
violent and sweeping condemnation of these teachings is
probably one of the most tragic episodes of Catholicism in
the last 100 years.
The issues ranged far and wide, but focused on scripture
studies for the most part. Historical exegetical methods
had been developed and applied to scripture in the last half
of the nineteenth century, particularly in Germany. Among
the results of this research was definitive proof that Moses
had not written the Pentateuch (a finding, by the way, that
is not even questioned anymore by serious bible scholars).
These and other findings presented a serious challenge to
the traditional Christian concept of scriptural
infallibility, and the modernists were anxious to reconcile
the idea of biblical error with the dogma of its divine
inspiration.
Pope Leo XIII was quite disturbed by what he saw as a
dangerous attraction for novelty among Catholic scholars,
and called it to a halt with an encyclical in 1893. In that
document, Catholic theologians were required to ascribe to
the traditional notion of biblical inerrancy and use the
early Church Fathers, the Scholastic theologians, and above
all St. Thomas as their guide in interpreting scripture.
This reflected the dominance that neo-Scholasticism had come
to have over the Roman Curia and most of Catholic academia,
but the difficulty was that neo-Scholasticism interpreted
St. Thomas in the most narrow and unhistorical way possible,
completely in contrast to the spirit in which St. Thomas
himself wrote, I might add.
Not long after this, Leo announce the formation of the
pontifical biblical commission. This was at first taken as
a sign of a certain tolerance toward the new critical
scholarship. Its membership was stacked, however, with an
overwhelming majority of Scholastic, non-critical scholars.
Unsurprisingly, this commission issued a decree in 1906
affirming that Catholics must hold Moses as the author of
the entire Pentateuch. After this it was only a matter of
time before a general condemnation of Modernism was
forthcoming, and this came in the decree of the Holy Office
"Lamentabili" in 1907. The circumstances and wording of
this decree are very unfortunate. Instead of at least
giving credit to the modernists for asking the right
questions, it presumed bad faith and evil motives to zealous
and sincere Catholic scholars. Furthermore, the document is
a sad example of the highest authority in the Church
resorting to cruel invective and sarcasm. It abounds in
phrases such as "poisonous doctrines", "most pernicious of
all adversaries of the Church", "the root of their folly and
error [is their] boundless effrontery", and so on.
To stamp out modernism, Leo set up a mechanism of repression
the likes of which hadn't been seen since the worst days of
the Inquisition. Vigilance committees were called for in
every diocese to watch for and report any sign of modernism,
censorship agencies were likewise set up, all these groups
were to conduct their proceedings in strict secrecy. And,
of course, all priests and teachers were required to take
the famed "Oath against Modernism." Later, under Pius X, a
network was set up of spies with connections in important
Catholic dioceses. This network kept their activities
covert by use of a secret code and regularly engaged in ad
hominem attacks, keeping a blacklist of suspected Modernists
which even included a Cardinal. Any Catholic who was in the
least bit lukewarm about Scholasticism or showed the
slightest interest in an historical approach to the
interpretation of scripture was subject to their attacks.
In all fairness to the hierarchy, some Modernists had their
own covert and admittedly subversive practices such as
writing under pseudonyms and using ambiguous formulas to
cloak a truly radical rejection of essential Catholic
dogmas. Likewise, the hierarchy's primary responsibility
was not to historical method but to millions of church-goers
who could have been led to profound crises of faith if these
speculations had been heard from the pulpit.
Still in all, in retrospect it's clear that the Vatican
threw out the baby with the bath water. Many of the most
brilliant Catholic thinkers of the day were driven out of
theology and/or silenced altogether. For the next 30 years,
seminarians were taught a biblical fundamentalism that would
embarrass a TV-evangelist today. Thankfully, in the
forties, Pius XII reversed the ban on the use of
contemporary methods of scriptural exegesis in the
encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu." Today, the historical
conditioning of Church teachings, in a certain restricted
sense, is almost a given.
Of course, one can never say what "would have been" had
something in the past been different; but I think it's safe
to speculate that the Church today might not be experiencing
such turmoil in the aftermath of Vatican II if the hierarchy
had been less hysterical in their reaction to Modernist
errors. Modernism raised valid issues of genuine concern
regarding how the faith is to be understood by contemporary
Catholics, and it is at least conceivable that the Church
could have sought to sift the wheat from the chaff in a
spirit of Christian charity and respect. Instead, the
crisis was not really resolved but repressed and the
questions were not even allowed to be asked, let alone
honestly addressed; and as history shows time and again, a
crisis repressed is a crisis merely postponed and doomed to
reappear with even more force later.
If nothing else, I think we should expect that the hierarchy
would have learned from all this that systematic repression
of inquiry does not serve the gospel. Unfortunately, the
pattern of behavior we've been seeing out of Rome for at
least the past 10 years seems to suggest otherwise. Well,
as the saying goes, those who do not learn from their
mistakes are doomed to repeat them. It's too bad that the
Church must suffer because of the narrow-mindedness of some
of her highest leaders.
Ray Lang
la...@cs.tulane.edu