Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 5)

The Wild Reed's special series examining the papacy continues with Catholic theologian Mary E. Hunt's truly radical (in the truest sense of the word) perspective, one that conveys her interest in "getting rid of the papacy and other trappings of monarchy in favor of a democratic, participatory model of church."

It's a perspective that's shared in Hunt's commentary "What the Papal Transition Means and What Feminists Can Do About It," published just days before the March 13 election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis. Following is an excerpt.

. . . No matter who is elected, the process is mortally flawed because it represents a model of church that is long out of date. Until and unless structural changes take place to develop a well integrated, representative governing model in which all members of the Catholic community – including women, married/partnered people, young people – are involved there will be no change. Beginning with local base communities and parishes, adult members need to have real decision-making power about personnel, money, property, sacramental, and social justice work. The same goes for dioceses and regions such that increasingly representative bodies make decisions that clerics cannot overrule. This includes people from the poorest most marginalized parts of the world whose well being and dignity ought to be the center of Catholic concern but clearly is not. We who are part of the community expect and demand that we exercise voice, vote, and responsibility in ministry and in governance.

I am not interested in the personal characteristics of a new pope, even in betting on the outcome of the papal horse race. That is the patriarchal frame of the discussion, which I think feminists need to reject. If I respond favoring Cardinal X over Cardinal Y, or if I sketch out the characteristics of a “kinder gentler” pope, then I am conceding that the model is acceptable. It is not.

I am interested in getting rid of the papacy and other trappings of monarchy in favor of a democratic, participatory model of church. Please don’t suggest that I become a Presbyterian. Though some of my best friends are Presbyterians, I am what a Catholic can and should look like in the 21st century. This is the change we need.

Even though my goal of dismantling the kyriarchy* is unlikely to hold sway, I want to look at the religious significance of the elite, exclusionary approaches to governance that are playing out on worldwide television and web because they have a shaping influence. I try to forget what I know about all of the inner dealings of the Roman Catholic Church (electing a pope is like watching the law and sausage being made – not a pretty sight) and imagine what those who simply see the spectacle played out on screen think. I suspect that what people see is at once convincing and confusing.

The trope of tradition is very persuasive. Even though the most recent pope resigned and then made up new rules for the conclave that will replace him, most people do not see the clear elasticity of the church. Those in power reserve to themselves such conscience-bound decisions as resigning from the papacy, while women who make choices about their own bodies are labeled sinners. The gentlemen change the conclave rules with the wave of a Motu Proprio (“on his own impulse”) as they call it, but when we lay people decide on our own impulses to use birth control or to love in a same-sex way we are considered sinful.

The smoke and mirrors that the media report on draw people’s attention to mistaken notions of timeless, tradition-bound splendor. It is hard to compete with the costumes – everyone knows about the pope’s red shoes that signify the blood of the martyrs – the music, the buildings, the grounds for what appears to be God’s own realm. People love the quaint notion that the Cardinal electors will be locked away without their smart phones to let the Holy Spirit decide on the pope’s successor. I do not want to offend anyone, but I am realistic enough to think the deal is long done and the pageantry, not unlike the Wizard of Oz, is simply good for business.

What astounds me is why intelligent people, especially those in the media, are not scratching their heads in utter confusion about the whole scene. Shareholders, stakeholders have absolutely no input into the process. Imagine if this kind of election took place in Cuba or in Washington! I would think they would have some critical questions to ask – where are the women, where are the young people, where are more people of color who make up the growing majority in the church? Of a billion people this tiny cadre has all the power? What is wrong with this picture?

A great deal is wrong with it. The worst part, in my view, is the instrumentalization of religion, of people’s faith, to reinscribe and reinforce ways of being and acting as if they were the will of the divine. This is blasphemy. I make no such counter claim that my approach is what God wants. Rather, I assume that human beings can and should organize themselves in ways that reflect their most deeply held values. To see 115 men hold the power in a worldwide community is frightening because of what it means about their sense of the divine. Obviously they think God favors men over women, the few over the many, their privileged information over the sensus fidelium. Where they read this in Christian scripture is not clear. I respectfully disagree and urge us to change the power model as quickly as possible, beginning by withdrawing financial support from the institutional Roman Catholic Church.

There are deep social implications of the world’s largest Christian denomination modeling a monarchical way of being in an increasingly democratic world. Apart from looking ridiculous and offending people at every turn such that the second largest denomination in the US is ex-Catholics, the outcome of this exercise is to reinforce the power of patriarchy. If these men can act with impunity then other corporations can have few if any women in their boardrooms. If this monarchical model is acceptable, than governments do not need to allow their citizens voice and vote. If God wills the outcome of a papal election, then surely God wills wars, ecocide, and other human-made problems. I reject this theology. . . .

To read Mary Hunt's commentary in its entirety, click here.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 1)
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 2)
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 3)
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 4)
Beyond Papalism
Casanova-Inspired Reflections on Papal Power - at 30,000 ft.
Mary Hunt: "Catholicism is a Very Complex Reality"
Crisis? What Crisis?
Mary Hunt on Our Catholic "Stonewall Moment"

Related Off-site Links:
Smoke Gets In Your Eyes - Mary E. Hunt (Feminist Studies in Religion, February 14, 2013).
Theology Has Consequences: What Policies Will Pope Francis Champion? – Mary E. Hunt (Religion & Politics, March 18, 2013).
Francis at Inaugural Mass: Pope Must Be Servant, 'Inspired by Lowly' – Joshua J. McElwee (National Catholic Reporter, March 19, 2013).
Pope Sets Tone for Humbler Papacy, Calls for Defense of the Weak – Philip Pullella and Catherine Hornby (Reuters via Yahoo! News, March 19, 2013).
Response of a Gay Catholic to Pope Francis' Installation Homily: Does "Everyone" Include LGBT Human Beings? – William D. Lindsey (Bilgimage, March 19, 2013).
Could Pope Francis Fit a Popular Progressive Poem? – Sharon Abercrombie (National Catholic Reporter, March 19, 2013).
Note to New Pope: Half of the World's Poor Are Women – Marian Ronan (Religion Dispatches, March 13, 2013).

* Notes Mary Hunt, “ ‘Kyriarchy’ is a term coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. It means, literally, structures of lordship. It denotes the interstructured forms of oppression – gender, race, class, nationality, sexuality and the like – that result in power differences and injustice. Kyriarchy is used to distinguish the hierarchical, clerical model of church from the larger Catholic community. Fiorenza includes a useful discussion of kyriocentrism in her Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001].”

Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 4)

A key aspect of any type of 'progressive perspective' is the desire and ability to cut through the layers of superfluous matter that inevitably build up around foundational ideas and concepts (including spiritual ones) and historical figures and events (including religious ones). The purpose of such 'cutting through' is, of course, to get to the core essentials, the heart, it you like, of these types of foundational realities. It's a radical endeavor, to be sure. And as I've noted previously, all too often the word 'radical' is erroneously equated with extremism of one kind or another. Yet that’s not what 'radical' means. It means to go to the root, to recognize and address the underlying essence of a given reality, along with deep-seated issues, questions and/or problems associated with it.

And so I continue with this special Wild Reed series, one which focuses on progressive perspectives on the Catholic reality of the papacy. This reality has been very much in the news lately owing to the March 13 election of Argentinian Jesuit, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the 'chair of Peter,' upon which he will sit as Pope Francis.

Much of the media coverage of Bergoglio's election has focused on interesting but rather superfluous things about the trappings of the papacy, about Bergoglio himself, and/or about the type of papacy he may or may not usher in. All this chatter reminds me a bit of commentators gushing and gossiping about details of a royal wedding – details like the clothes being worn, the personality traits of the royal participants, and any perceived family tensions bubbling away below the surface. As to questions of the role and history of the monarchical system within which this wedding is taking place, let alone this system's necessity in this day and age, forget it. As I've noted previously, all of this could be readily dismissed given the miniscule, if non-existent role that royalty plays today. The monarchical system of the papacy, however, still has substantial clout on the world's political stage. Yet should it?

And is a monarchical model of church leadership in keeping with the life and message of Jesus?

Is such a monarchical model capable of moving beyond its own self-preservation? Or can it only ever produce 'conservative' leaders (as the opening cartoon suggests)?

Is such a model of leadership conducive to adult faith development? Or does it keep adults spiritually stunted and fixated on cults of personality?

The pope is often described as Christ's representative on earth. Yet shouldn't this be a role that all of us should seek to embody?

These are the types of questions absent from the mainstream media's coverage of the pending coronation of Pope Francis and of the papacy in general. Accordingly, we hear very few voices that in a genuinely radical way cut through the many surface observations and fixations so as to pose questions of depth and thus highlight the many inconvenient truths about the papacy.

The whole purpose of this Wild Reed series, however, is to lift up these voices and their progressive and radical perspectives. And so today I continue this series by sharing the perspectives of two writers. The first is renowned author and historian Garry Wills. What follows is an excerpt from a recent New York Review of Books op-ed by Wills entitled "Does the Pope Matter?"

. . . When Cardinal Ratzinger was asked, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, if he was disturbed that many Catholics ignored papal teaching, he said he was not, since “truth is not determined by a majority vote.” But that is precisely how the major doctrines like those on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection were fixed in creeds: at councils like that of Nicaea, by the votes of hundreds of bishops, themselves chosen by the people, before popes had any monopoly on authority. Belief then rose up from the People of God, and was not pronounced by a single oracle. John Henry Newman, in On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (1859), argued that there had been periods when the body of believers had been truer to the faith than had the Church hierarchy. He was silenced for saying it, but his historical arguments were not refuted.

Catholics have had many bad popes whose teachings or acts they could or should ignore or defy. Orcagna painted one of them in hell; Dante assigned three to his Inferno; Lord Acton assured Prime Minister William Gladstone that Pius IX’s condemnation of democracy was not as bad as the papal massacres of Huguenots, which showed that “people could be very good Catholics and yet do without Rome”; and John Henry Newman hoped Pius IX would die during the first Vatican Council, before he could do more harm. Acton’s famous saying, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” was written to describe Renaissance popes.

With the election of a new pope, the press will repeat old myths – that Christ made Peter the first pope, and that there has been an “apostolic succession” of popes from his time. Scholars, including great Catholic ones like Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer, have long known that Peter was no pope. He was not even a priest or a bishop – offices that did not exist in the first century. And there is no apostolic succession, just the twists and tangles of interrupted, multiple, and contested office holders. It is a rope of sand. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, for instance, there were three popes, none of whom would resign. A new council had to be called to start all over. It appointed Martin V, on condition that he call frequent councils – a condition he evaded after he was in power. . . .

To read Garry Wills' commentary in its entirety, click here.


The second voice I lift up this evening, and one which also offers a radical perspective on the papacy, is that of Nathan Schneider. Following are excerpts from Schneider's March 14, 2013, Religion Dispatches commentary "The Pope is Not the Church."

. . . [T]he papacy is not to be confused with the Church itself. At no time should this have been more clear than those strange and special few days when the Catholic Church was a people – an assembly, a community, a mystical body – without a pope.

This is not to say that a pope doesn’t have an important job. It’s an office with considerable (if metaphorical) justification in the Bible, as well as a very long and venerable (if checkered) tradition. Popes help hold together a diverse Church, one far more varied and interesting than most people realize; Vatican City and St. Patrick’s Cathedral are part of the same Church as the back-side of an altar in Guatemala covered in wax and feathers and the parish on the South Side of Chicago that worships with a gospel choir and African dance. A pope is part of the Catholic package for sure, but only part.

Catholic Christianity has a long tradition of being shaped from the margins, starting with its founder.

The Jesus we meet in the Gospels is refreshingly indifferent to those who claim to run the institutions of the world, both religious and secular. He doesn’t appear to have been a revolutionary in the modern sense of seeking to replace those in power with an ideology, but nor did he ever take authorities more seriously than necessary. Render Caesar’s coins unto Caesar, he said, but save the rest for God and neighbor. He accepted the death sentence that the high priests and imperial legates placed upon him, but he never stopped laying bare their hypocrisy. In that ultimate obedience to authority he found freedom, for himself and – as far as Christians are concerned – for all of humanity.

Since then, the story of the Church has been punctuated by people who consulted their consciences first and their popes later. Francis of Assisi assembled his community of barefoot wanderers before going to Pope Innocent III to seek approval. In more recent times, Dorothy Day didn’t need a pope’s permission before opening a house of hospitality for the poor and resistance against war. The Community of Sant’Egidio, founded in Italy in the late 1960s, has fought HIV/AIDS and negotiated peace treaties around the world on its own terms. Yet, in honor of this witness, Benedict XVI made a habit of visiting Sant’Egidio's ministries in Rome. Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York is seeking Dorothy Day’s cause for sainthood. And now, almost eight hundred years after Francis’ death, a pope has named himself after him.

Each of these Catholic heroes had a certain respect for the papacy, but they didn’t let that get in the way of living out the gospel for themselves. They took inspiration from the words of Church authorities, but more importantly they took action on their own – in creative, authentic, and Christian fashion. “In all times the laity have been the measure of the Catholic spirit,” Cardinal John Newman said more than a century ago. If what we expect from the Church is what we expect from the aged and insulated man who happens to hold the office of Peter, there is little reason to expect much.

In the New York Times, Paul Elie recently suggested that in imitation of the papal resignation Catholics might “give up your pew for Lent” – that is, take at least a temporary break from their troubled Church. From time to time, one hears a call along these lines for frustrated Catholics to boycott the Church outright in protest, as if that will make the men in charge finally clean house. But I’ve seen far too many smart and conscientious people give up on the Church – for good reasons, I’m afraid – to want any more of them to leave, even for one Sunday.

What the Church needs is more committed and courageous souls in it, not fewer. It needs souls who are too busy organizing communities of radical living and prayer, and working for justice among the oppressed, and composing new hymns, to worry all that much about whom the Spirit and the cardinals might choose as pope. It needs souls willing to undertake new forms of thought and action capable of making what Catholics see as God’s good news a reality in our time – forms that will influence and inspire popes of the future, even if the present ones don’t yet get it. . . .

To read Nathan Schneider's commentary in its entirety, click here.

NEXT: Part 5

Related Off-site Links:
Garry Wills: The Pope Shouldn't Be King – Sally Quinn (The Washington Post, March 15, 2013).
Media 'Misses Deeper Justice Issues' on Papal Coverage – Thomas C. Fox (National Catholic Reporter, March 18, 2013).
New Pope's Style an Implicit Criticism of Benedict's Papacy – Tom Heneghan (Reuters via Yahoo! News, March 18, 2013).
New Pope and Geopolitics of Secrecy – Ivone Gebara (National Catholic Reporter, March 18, 2013).
Simpler Inauguration Planned for a More Modest Pope – Tom Heneghan (Reuters via Yahoo! News, March 18, 2013).
The Election of Pope Francis Opens the Door on Another Sordid Vatican Story – Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, March 18, 2013).
Vatican Could Learn a Thing or Two About Renewal from Women Religious – Joan Chittister (National Catholic Reporter, March 6, 2013).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 1)
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 2)
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 3)
Beyond Papalism
Jesus: Path-Blazer of Radical Transformation
"I Love the Radical Catholic Church"
Remembering the "Radical Ethic" of the Catholic Worker Movement
Garry Wills: All "Poped Out"
The Loyal Catholic in Changing Times
Perspectives on Natural Law – Part 4: Garry Wills
"Receive What You Are, the Body of Christ"
Casanova-inspired Reflections on Papal Power - at 30,000 ft.

Image: Rob Rogers.

Something to Think About . . .

.

Recommended Off-site Links:
Black Smoke Signals No Pope Elected at First Conclave Vote – Crispian Balmer and Philip Pullella (Reuters via Yahoo! News, March 12, 2013).
We Need a Pope Able to Think, Willing to Learn – John Wijngaards (National Catholic Reporter, March 12, 2013).
As Cardinals Gather to Elect Pope, Catholic Officials Break Into a Sweat Over News That Priests Share €23m Building with Huge Gay Sauna – Michael Day (The Independent, March 11, 2013).

Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 3)

In the Vatican today the cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church began their conclave to elect a new pope.

Here at The Wild Reed I continue a special papal conclave series dedicated to sharing perspectives that are not being presented in mainstream media coverage of events in Rome. Today's installment fits this bill to a tee! Read on and you'll see why.

Tom Cahill, the author of numerous books including How the Irish Saved Christianity and Pope John XXIII: A Life, was recently asked by The Wall Street Journal to write a piece that would begin, "The new pope should be ..." He submitted the following but it was turned down because, Cahill believes, the paper did not care for its "political implications" . . . which is perhaps another way of saying its 'progressive perspective'!

The next pope should be a Christian, that is, a genuine follower of Jesus Christ. Most popes have not been that, especially over the past millennium and more. Indeed, the idea of a Christian pope takes us so far from the historical norm that we must completely replace the images in our head with startling new pictures.

A real Christian would not wear special clothes nor would he live in a palace. Jesus had neither bank account nor art collection. He didn’t even have a home to call his own, for as he said to one inquiring contemporary, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20). “The Son of Man” was Jesus’s usual description of himself. It was not intended as an exalted description nor even as a special designation. A better translation might be “Humanity’s Child,” in other words, a plain human being. The new pope would live among the poor, as Jesus did, perhaps even be homeless on occasion.

The new pope would not enjoy being addressed by special titles, nor would he wish to be called “pope” (or “papa”). Gregory the Great, elected bishop of Rome toward the end of the sixth century, was one of the few truly great popes. He refused to be called “pope,” saying “Away with these words that increase vanity and weaken love!” A bishop, insisted Gregory, should be ever “a minister, not a master,” who tries “to subdue himself, not his brothers and sisters.” The only title Gregory would accept was “Servant of God’s Servants.”

If he is a true Christian, the new pope will "hunger and thirst for justice" for all, as Jesus recommends in his great Sermon on the Mount. Of course, with that kind of attitude we can only expect the new pope to get himself into enormous international trouble. Perhaps even more trouble will come his way if he feels called to be a peacemaker, another of Jesus' recommendations, trying to make peace among those who are at war with one another. Of course, he will need to start with his fellow Christians.

The new pope would make no distinction among categories of persons. He wouldn’t care whether one was Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or a non-believer. Jesus obviously didn’t care about such things, since he made his great example of human goodness a Samaritan, one of those unthinkable heretics, whom all the upright of Jesus’ time despised. But the Good Samaritan halted his journey for the sake of rescuing a mugged man whom none of the conventionally “good” people wanted to help. Let him bleed to death on the side of the road, they shrugged. No, said the Samaritan, let me take care of him till he recovers. In this way, the new pope would be like his greatest predecessor, John XXIII, who made no difference between one set of believers (or non-believers) and another.

If the new pope is a true Christian, we will probably crucify him.

NEXT: Part 4

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 1)
Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 2)
Why Jesus Is My Man
Beyond Papalism
Casanova-inspired Reflections on Papal Power - at 30,000 ft.
Quote of the Day - July 24, 2012
What It Means to Be Catholic
No Patriarchal Hierarchy, No Rigid Conformity
Rome Falling
Re-Forming "the Vatican" Doesn't Mean Destroying the Church
Pan's Labyrinth: Critiquing the Cult of Unquestioning Obedience
What the Vatican Can Learn from the X-Men
Roger Haight on the Church We Need

Recommended Off-site Links:
Black Smoke Signals No Pope Elected at First Conclave Vote – Crispian Balmer and Philip Pullella (Reuters via Yahoo! News, March 12, 2013).
We Need a Pope Able to Think, Willing to Learn – John Wijngaards (National Catholic Reporter, March 12, 2013).
Papabile Rumors and Keeping Perspective About the Conclave – Bob Shine (Bonding 2.0, March 12, 2013).
Will the Next Pope Be Eco-Friendly? – Brian Roewe (National Catholic Reporter, March 12, 2013).
As Cardinals Gather to Elect Pope, Catholic Officials Break Into a Sweat Over News That Priests Share €23m Building with Huge Gay Sauna – Michael Day (The Independent, March 11, 2013).

Image: Liz Lemon Swindle.

Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 2)

For this second installment of The Wild Reed's special papal conclave series I share excerpts from my 2007 interview with Robert Caruso (right), a priest within the Old Catholic Church. Since this interview, my friend Robert has gone on to write the definitive book on Old Catholicism (excerpts of which are shared in The Wild Reed series "Understanding the Old Catholic Church," beginning here).

Before I share Robert's words let me just say that the papacy of today's Roman Catholic Church has been several hundred years in the making. Historically, its development can be traced as a series of increasingly reactionary measures orchestrated in response to new insights and understandings brought to light by advances in the sciences and by the rise and spread of democracy throughout Europe. Today the papacy serves primarily as a pitiful remnant of a once formidable bastion of defensiveness against these new understandings and developments. It wasn't always like this, nor does it need to remain so.

Old Catholicism views its understanding of the papacy as an authentically traditional one. At the same time, the Old Catholic Church is a very dynamic and progressive expression of Catholicism. Robert notes, for instance, that women and LGBT persons are not just welcome to the table at Eucharist but are also welcome to "fully participate in the gospel ministry of Christ’s church by sharing their diverse gifts with the local eucharistic fellowship."

Following are Robert Caruso's thoughts on the papacy from an Old Catholic perspective, a perspective I believe is both important and helpful for Roman Catholics who are serious about reconsidering and reforming the papacy.

Old Catholics share similarities with the Roman church liturgically and theologically; they believe in the seven sacraments of the church, the Eucharist as the local church’s central act of worship, and bishops, priests, and deacons functioning as ministers of Christ’s mystical body: the local church universal.

Old Catholics disagree with the universal supremacy of the papacy (i.e. the pope), and all so-called infallible dogmatic teachings decreed post council of Trent (1546). However, Old Catholics maintain the primacy of the pope in stating that he holds a primus inter pares (first among equals) position among the college of bishops in the church. The disagreement between the papacy and the Union of Utrecht (generally speaking) is focused on Old Catholic’s maintaining that the pope and the papacy is not a divinely inspired institution, nor should the pope possess supreme jurisdictional power over all local churches throughout the world.

Other differences between the Old and Roman Catholic churches are more visible; the Old Catholic church of Germany ordained it first two women to the ministerial priesthood in 1996, homosexuals (gay and lesbian) are welcome to full participation in the body of Christ, and nobody is ever denied Eucharist. The church is understood as healer, lover, sustainer, and forgiver. Meaning, Old Catholics elevate the dignity and conscience of the baptized in understanding what sin (the separation between God and oneself) is and how it affects her or him in their lives. There is no black and white social moral catechism for Old Catholics because social morality is viewed as being relative, and the Church (the body of the baptized) moves with and in the power of the Spirit to meet the needs and hurts of all the parts of the body throughout the ages. Hence, social morality is not demeaned but significantly valued in recognizing its complexity and relativistic nature.

The pope, according to Old Catholic European theologians, holds a place of primacy as the bishop of Rome because this geographical location is traditionally known as the place where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred. The pope is the symbol of unity for every local church universal throughout the world, and his historical place in the catholic (universal) Church is one of honor, not power.

Old Catholics do not agree that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and supreme head of the universal local churches. There is one head for the body and that is Christ Jesus (Eph. 4:15). The bishop is a representative of Christ for the local church, and no one bishop is superior to any other local church bishop. Furthermore Old Catholics do not affirm that the bishop of Rome (as an individual) is infallible in any way, shape, or form. The Church (the entire body of the baptized) teaches infallibly through the power of the Holy Spirit. No one human being stands alone and speaks for the universal Church because it is antithetical to its salvific communal and universal nature. Meaning, as individuals our human pride fools us into believing the illusion that we are free agents – it is only when we (the baptized) function in communion with the entire body, that we truly begin to understand Christ’s paschal mystery and the salvific nature of the local church universal in relationship with the Triune God.

. . . How did the Old Catholics arrive at a theological justification for a Catholic Church not in communion with Rome? Old Catholics cannot be fully understood (from a historical and theological perspective) apart from Vatican I and the doctrine (teaching) of papal infallibility. The disagreement with Rome and Utrecht had everything to do with the “crisis of conscience” between a local church (Utrecht) and papal authority. When the papacy forced certain local national churches to accept the doctrine of infallibility of the pope or face excommunication, a theological crisis of conscience emerged yet again and conflict ensued between the papacy and certain national churches in Europe. This “anti-infallibility” movement was led by Ignaz von Dölinger (a Roman Catholic theologian present at the Vatican I council), who later became a major “classical” theologian for the Old Catholic Church. Dölinger was against the doctrine of papal infallibility because he claimed it was a novel teaching foreign to what the ancient church fathers taught regarding the bishop of Rome. He further stated that if the Roman church accepted the infallibility doctrine of the pope, the church would quintessentially redefine itself apart from the tradition of the ancient church. Dölinger asserted that Vatican I, by accepting the papal infallibility doctrine, created a new Catholic Church, and he further asserted that he would remain part of the old Catholic Church – the church that did not distance itself from the tradition of the ancient church. Hence, the term “Old Catholic” was coined and reserved for those national churches that did not accept the papal infallibility doctrine promulgated at the Vatican I council. It is important to note that the Old Catholic churches did not schism with the Roman Catholic Church; they were rather expelled (excommunicated) by the papacy for refusing to submit to the Vatican counsel. Hence, these local churches had no choice but to unite with each other, so to preserve their Catholicity apart from Rome.

NEXT: Part 3

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 1)
• An Old Catholic Perspective on the Roman Hierarchy's "Dumbing Down" of the Catholic Church
• Robert Caruso's Scholarly Introduction to Old Catholicism
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 1)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 2)
• Understanding the Old Catholic Church (Part 3)
• Robert Caruso on the Pentecost Rainbow Sash Presence at the Cathedral
• Celebrating the Risen Christ, Old Catholic Style
• Beyond Papalism
• Casanova-inspired Reflections on Papal Power - at 30,000 ft.
• What It Means to Be Catholic
• No Patriarchal Hierarchy, No Rigid Conformity
• Rome Falling
• Re-Forming "the Vatican" Doesn't Mean Destroying the Church
• Pan's Labyrinth: Critiquing the Cult of Unquestioning Obedience
• What the Vatican Can Learn from the X-Men
• Roger Haight on the Church We Need

Recommended Off-site Links:
On Day Before Papal Vote, Talk Shifts to Ritual – Joshua J. McElwee (National Catholic Reporter, March 11, 2013).
SNAP to Cardinal Angelo Sodano: Step Down Tomorrow as Papal Conclave Begins – William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, March 11, 2013).
What Will Happen Inside the Vatican Conclave to Choose the Next Pope? – David Wright and Alyssa Newcomb (ABC News, March 11, 2013).
Picking the Pope: Holy Spirit or 'Groupthink' – David Gibson (Religion News Service via The National Catholic Reporter, March 9, 2013).
Mary Hunt on CBS News: "Conclave a 'Farce' When Women Have No Say” – WATER (March 11, 2013).
The Next Pope Should Be Catholic – Timothy George (First Things, March 8, 2013).
Father Marcial Maciel And The Popes He Stained – Jason Berry (The Daily Beast, March 11, 2013).
Vatican Summoned Before UN Committee on the Rights of the Child – Barbara Blaine (SNAP, February 28, 2013).
What Would Christ Say If He Could See the Church Today? – Fr. Peter Daly (National Catholic Reporter, March 11, 2013).

Progressive Perspectives on the Papacy (Part 1)

.
With the papal conclave starting on Tuesday, I thought I'd take the opportunity to share over the next few days some perspectives on the papacy that are not being raised, let alone explored, in the mainstream media's coverage of events in Rome.

I don't know about you, but lately I've found myself totally astounded (and somewhat frustrated) by how so many of the news outlets of a democratic and equality-loving country like the U.S, readily suspend recognition of such qualities in their uncritical reporting on the current machinations of the Vatican's monarchical papacy. As with their coverage of royal weddings, mainstream media outlets seem both mesmerized and stupefied by the pageantry, pomp, and ceremony of papal elections. I would readily ignore such an embarrassing lapse in critical coverage were it not for the fact that the papacy, unlike, say, the British royal family, still has a degree of influence and power in today's world.

I call the perspectives I share in this series "progressive" as they recognize and encourage the capacity for growth in understanding, and thus for development and change in both personal and institutional life. I am drawn to this capacity within all expressions of religion, including the church of my birth. For this reason I identify as a progressive Catholic.

I commence this series with John A. Sanford's insightful interpretation of the gospel story that many Catholics cite to justify the papacy as it exists today, i.e. as an absolute monarchy whose 'monarch,' the pope, is understood to be the one and only spiritual successor of Peter. This story is, of course, the one in which Jesus calls Peter the "rock" upon which the church is to be built. Without doubt, it is a powerful story. Yet because, as Sanford shows, it offers an alternative understanding of both the role of Peter and the meaning of 'the Church,' it opens the door for Catholics to revisit, question, and explore the meaning of the papacy.

. . . Ultimately the power to withstand the storm of exposure to the inner [unconscious] world is the rock of consciousness of the Word of God. The ego standpoint is often represented as a house. If one puts one's faith in things other than consciousness of the meaning of God's Word in the soul, the house of the ego cannot stand. The image of the house is an important one in Jesus' sayings . . . Jesus says of the storm and the house: "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on rock. Rain came down, floods rose, gales blew and hurled themselves against that house, and it did not fall: it was founded on rock." (Matt. 7:24-25/Luke 6:47-48)

Here the house stands amid the storm because it was founded upon rock. This rock is the rock of consciousness. It comes from hearing and acting upon the words of Jesus; that is, by fulfilling the demands of the ethic of consciousness and creativity. It is spiritual consciousness and insight that form the rock of Christ on which the kingdom is founded, as appears in the often misinterpreted story of the confession of Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi when Jesus asks them, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

The disciples give various speculations identifying Jesus with one or another of the prophets of Israel. Jesus then counters with a direct thrust at his disciples, "But you, who do you say I am?"

Then Simon Peter speaks up, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And Jesus replies, "Simon son of Jonah, you are a happy man! Because it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven."

What Jesus congratulates Peter on is his spiritual insight. Peter has become conscious, and on this rests both his faith and his authority. In the Greek, Jesus calls Simon "petros," the masculine for "rock," and then refers to "this petra," the feminine form of the word. Peter's authority is founded upon his petra, the rock of his conscious insight. It is against this principle of consciousness that even the storms from the underworld, the hellish assault of the chaotic forces of the unconscious, cannot prevail.

The rock is not Peter the person but the insight of Peter, the act of consciousness. Wherever this act of consciousness is made, the Church exists.

People with this insight are enormously important. Here is another paradox of the kingdom: Though God is central to it, human beings are also indispensable, because human consciousness is vital. For this reason human beings are given the keys to the kingdom of God. We, as bearers of consciousness, are that important in God's plan. Here Jesus goes far beyond the ethic of obedience to the ethic of creativity. Human beings are now much more than fallen creatures needing to be restored; they are creative creatures endowed by God with a fundamental significance in the total scheme of things.

– John A. Sanford
The Kingdom Within: The Inner Meanings of Jesus' Sayings

pp. 55-57

NEXT: Part 2

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Beyond Papalism
A Return to the Spirit
Casanova-inspired Reflections on Papal Power - at 30,000 ft.
Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
Beyond a PC Pope
It’s Time We Evolved Beyond Theological Imperialism
What It Means to Be Catholic
No Patriarchal Hierarchy, No Rigid Conformity
Rome Falling
Re-Forming "the Vatican" Doesn't Mean Destroying the Church
Pan's Labyrinth: Critiquing the Cult of Unquestioning Obedience
What the Vatican Can Learn from the X-Men
Roger Haight on the Church We Need

Image 1: St. Peter's Basilica, Rome, by Michael Bayly (2005).
Image 2: Dar al Hajar, "The Rock House," Yeman, by Oliver Holms.
Image 3: Maciej Dakowicz.

Beyond Papalism

Earlier this year I attended with several friends from both CPCSM and Catholic Rainbow Parents, an insightful presentation by Sister Jeannine Gramick (pictured below, back row center).


Sponsored by the Homophobia and Heterosexism Working Group of the Justice Commission of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, Sister Jeannine’s talk was entitled “Transforming Hierarchical Structures,” and offered a number of “guiding principles” for such transformation within the Catholic Church, along with some concrete strategies by which this much needed transformation can and is being achieved.

Three such strategies, as outlined by Jeannine, are as follows:

1. Active compliance: when we work actively with those within the hierarchical system and abide by whatever decision comes about. We make our position known but nevertheless comply. In this way the hierarchy at least knows of an alternative position and seeds of change may well have been planted.

2. Creative circumvention: when we follow the letter of the hierarchical law but not its spirit. An example: Lay people, forbidden to preach during Mass, give a “talk” before or after Mass.

3. Prophetic obedience: when one follows in the tradition of Jesus and the prophets and publicly name and confront structures that are oppressive to people. Obviously, much prayer, fasting, and reflection is required to discern if an act of prophetic obedience is appropriate.

All of this was very interesting, and I could certainly relate each of these strategies to various activities I’ve experienced and/or facilitated through my work with CPCSM. Yet the most instructive moment of the evening came when I witnessed Jeannine’s interaction with a man who had come to challenge and rebuke her contention that the hierarchy of the Church required transforming.

“The hierarchical structure of the Church and, specifically, the Vatican is ordained by God,” this man insisted. “Who are we to question? The pope is in a direct line of succession from Peter – upon whose authority Christ built the Church, one against which the gates of hell will not prevail. How dare we think we can change this structure, usurp this authority . . .”

And so on (and on) he went, basically defending a certain understanding of the papacy which equates it with “the Church.”

Those in attendance were in table group discussions when this particular individual challenged Jeannine. As a result, I couldn’t hear how exactly she responded to the points he raised. Yet what I could discern was the incredibly gentle and patient manner in which she listened to and engaged with this clearly agitated individual. What was also clear was that she simply did not agree with this man’s reducing of the Church to his understanding of the papacy, or to any understanding of a changeless tradition.

I’m sure their conversation was similar to one between a biblical fundamentalist and someone who has moved beyond a literal interpretation of the Bible. It many ways such conversations reflect the speaking of two very different languages, and there comes a point when you have to agree to disagree, wish the other person well, and get back to doing what you feel is important, meaningful, and an expression of God’s love in the world. My sense is that that’s how this man and Jeannine concluded their conversation.

In the months since witnessing this encounter, and in light of some very public denouncements of both myself and CPCSM as not being sufficiently Catholic (basically because we question “the rules” when it comes to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality), I’ve come to realize that perhaps more than simply “the hierarchy,” what specifically needs to be transformed within the Catholic Church is the papacy itself.


A stumbling block

Indeed, I’ve come to agree with Australian theologian Paul Collins when, in his book Papal Power: A Proposal for Change in Catholicism’s Third Millennium, he writes: “The papacy has emerged as the Catholic Church’s major internal structural problem. It has become a stumbling block to many, both inside and outside the Church.”


Collins reminds us that the pope is often called “Pontiff,” which “is derived from pontifex which, in turn, comes from pons facere – to build a bridge.”

“But the modern papacy,” he maintains, “has become the mouthpiece of an increasingly narrow orthodoxy.”

For as Collins observes: “Instead of drawing its teaching on faith and morality from the deep and broad Catholic tradition, the papacy has increasingly espoused a parochial moralism and a historically superficial scholastic theology that draws little from the contemporary world and has scarcely anything to say to it. Recent papal and curial utterances sound increasingly sectarian and apocalyptic, couched in language and rhetoric that is simply meaningless to most people. Instead of being the institution that crosses cultural divides, the papacy has lost the sense of being a bridge builder.”

Ironically, Sister Jeannine Gramick, along with Father Robert Nugent, co-founded, in 1977, New Ways Ministry, an organization which, to this day, continues to build bridges of understanding, dialogue, and pastoral sensitivity between the hierarchical Church and gay and lesbian Catholics.* Indeed, perhaps the pair’s most well-known book is entitled, Building Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church.

It seems that with regards to the issue of homosexuality, New Ways Ministry is serving more as a Pontiff than the actual Pontiff!


“Papalism”

It needs to be made very clear that neither theologians like Paul Collins or “bridge builders” like Jeannine Gramick (or even local ministry organizations like CPCSM) are suggesting that there is no role for the papacy. It may be, in the words of Collins, a “structural problem,” but what’s really at the root of this “problem,” and thus the cause of the current “ecclesiastical malaise” is not the concept of the papacy but “papalism.”

For Collins and others, papalism describes “the constant movement toward centralization, bureaucratic control, and a narrow orthodoxy that has characterized the activities of the papacy and the Roman curia over the last two centuries, especially since the definition of papal infallibility and primacy at the First Vatican Council in 1870.”**


“Following this Council,” notes Collins, “there has been an ever-escalating tendency to conflate what Vatican I called ‘ordinary magisterium’ – the day-to-day teaching and advice of the pope on belief and morals – with infallibility. In fact, the Italian historian Giuseppe Alberigo argues that the papacy unconsciously compensated itself for the final loss of the Papal States to a unified Italy in 1870 by transferring its energy into the business of the daily moral and religious government of the lives of Catholics. . . . In the process of doing this the papacy gradually attempted to muzzle all other magisterial (or teaching) sources in the Church and to subsume the entire theological function to itself.”

“As a result,” observes Collins, “the papacy since 1870 has come to act as a kind of ecclesiastical oracle, the assumed source of all wisdom and truth in the Church. This is a distortion of the true Catholic tradition.”

So what can be done to rectify this distortion? Well, to achieve any genuine reform in the papacy, says Collins, “the papacy itself will have to rediscover the notion of servant leadership that is so strong in the New Testament.”

Lifting up the Gospel of John’s account of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, Collins states that: “The papacy needs to rediscover that its leadership is one of service, not of domination.”

But surely, the Catholic Church’s historical development attests to the legitimacy of contemporary papal power. Not so, argues Collins. Indeed, “the position of the contemporary papacy,” he writes, “is not only unique in Christian history, it also distorts the traditionally understood structure of the Church.”

How so?, you may well ask.


The realities of papal history

Well, according to Collins, “a historical study of the evolution of the papal office does not reveal a smooth development from primitive beginnings to high papalism. It actually shows a very uneven evolution in which the papal office is sometimes powerful in the Church and at other times has only the most limited influence. But until now there has always been a check on papalism: synods, councils, the college of cardinals, theologians, emperors, kings, and Catholic governments have all provided some balance to centralized papal power. The collegial nature of authority in the Church has provided some form of balance to the monopoly of power in the hands of one person.”

“Absolutism,” insists Collins, “is not the norm in the Church. And always there has been the sensus fidelium, the acceptance or rejection, by the Catholic people, of Church teaching.” (An obvious example of a relatively recent “rejection” would be the non-reception of Humanae Vitae (1968) by an overwhelming number of “the Catholic people.”)

“Papalist ideology,” writes Collins, “tries to keep us fixated in the realm of doctrine, for it is there that the theoreticians of papal power can try to insulate us from the realities of papal history.”

Indeed, “the ideology that at present underpins contemporary papalism is profoundly suspicious of history,” says Collins. This is ironic as this same ideology “pretends to be traditional.”

Yet as Collins reminds us: “Tradition is the living expression of history; it makes sense only within a historical context. But papalism has no sense of history. It holds the view that there are permanent and never-changing absolutes, and such a mindset stymies its ability to comprehend the evolution and development not just of the Church’s belief, but also of its structure and experience.”

Contrary to what some may want us to believe, the papacy has related to the Church in several different ways in its long history.

Accordingly, “there is no reason why [the papacy] cannot discover a new role in the [new] century,” says Collins. “Development is an ongoing process . . . In order to move we need firstly to draw on the long tradition of Catholicism, and secondly to feel free to use our imaginations.”

After all, writes Collins, if Saint Robert Bellarmine in the seventeenth century “felt free to apply the contemporary idea of absolute monarchy to his model of the papacy, so present-day theologians should not be afraid to use models from our time – such as a synodal or democratic approach. Historically, no model is exhaustive or absolutely normative.”


One possible alternative model

One contemporary Catholic theologian who has offered a refreshingly new model for the papacy is Mary Hunt.

Speaking on Pacific Radio’s Democracy Now! program shortly after the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005, Hunt said, “I still favor and put out to your listeners, a possibility: the notion of an international team for the papacy. If the papacy is supposed to be a symbol of unity and not a person with authority, then it makes much more sense in a post-modern time to think not about one person . . . but in fact to think about an intergenerational, international team of men and women who could in fact meet and lead a billion people using technology and travel as a way to bring many voices into the discussion. So we’re really pushing for a horizontal model of church, not the vertical one that Cardinal Ratzinger represents.”

Is such a model possible? Is any alternative model of the papacy possible?

Clearly, there are Catholics who say it is not only possible but essential.


* In 1999 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith prohibited both Jeannine Gramick and Robert Nugent from pastoral ministry with lesbian or gay persons because their approach allegedly contained errors and ambiguities. Father Nugent is now doing parish work and adult education work. Sister Jeannine Gramick transferred to the Sisters of Loretto and continues her ministry of “bridge-building for an inclusive Church.”

** As has been noted in a previous post, during the late nineteenth century many in the Vatican were fearing and denouncing the democratic spirit sweeping across Europe and threatening their own imperial power and influence. The declaration of papal infallibility was one way of countering this spirit. Yet as with a number of issues, the Vatican was on the wrong side of history at this particular time. As a result, it’s now, for all intents and purposes, the last remaining absolute monarchy in Europe and, as such, an often irrelevant and embarrassing bastion of reactionary thought and activism.


Recommended Off-site Links:
“Shut Up, Father!” - A Review by Terry Dosh of Paul Collins’ Papal Power: A Proposal for Change in Catholicism’s Third Millennium.
“Collins’ Views on Papacy Face Heresy Investigation” - National Catholic Reporter, February 20, 1998.
Paul Collins’ Response to the Vatican

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Casanova-inspired Reflections on Papal Power – at 30,000 Ft.
• Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
• The Many Forms of Courage (Part III)
• Beyond a PC Pope
• Authentic Catholicism: The Antidote to Clericalism
• Chris McGillion Responds to the “Exacerbating” Actions of Cardinal Pell
• “Uncle Vince” is at it Again
• It’s Time We Moved Beyond Theological Imperialism
• Paul Collins and Marilyn Hatton
• Our Catholic “Stonewall Moment”

Images of Vatican City: Michael Bayly (August 2005).