Many years ago I read a book titled Bishops – But What Kind? It was a collection of essays by Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant scholars about the different understandings of the role of bishops in Christianity.
"...All bishops were equal, sharing in the apostolic succession traced back to Peter and the Twelve..."
The book argued for the necessity and importance of the ministry of episcopos – the “overseer” – —for the Christian tradition. Vatican II did much the same for Catholic bishops.
The episcopate, or ministry of bishop, has a long and complex history traceable back to the Apostles. Having said this, we should note the many variations that are to be found in this history, not least in the selection and authority of bishops.
In ancient times Christians chose one of their number to serve as overseer. As time went on the bishop was, variously, elected by fellow priests (often the senior priests of a diocese or cathedral chapter) or selected by a local authority – often a feudal lord or king. Each bishop was then confirmed in his appointment by the pope.
What held them together was a common faith and commitment to serve as leaders of the local Church. They were bonded by a sense of communion with each other and, until the 11th century, with the bishop of Rome, the pope, who enjoyed a primacy of honour rooted in the tradition that St Peter had been bishop of Rome.
The bishop had authority in his own diocese. At times and in certain places, this included, in the case of some European prince-bishops, civil authority. The bishop of Rome, for example, was also a king in central Italy until 1870. Bishops resolved local issues locally, while Councils of the Church brought them together to address broader doctrinal questions.
This collegial relationship was weakened by the 11th Century breakaway of Eastern bishops to form what we call today Eastern Orthodoxy and further damaged by the Reformation.
With the expansion of Catholicism to mission territories around the world, episcopal appointments were usually made by the pope. Only in the 1917 Code of Canon Law was it made the general norm (with a few exceptions) that the pope appointed bishops.
At the First Vatican Council (1869-70) the authority of the papacy was strengthened, not least by the declaration of limited papal infallibility. Where previously doctrinal issues had been resolved by councils of the Church or by individual bishops seeking the expert advice of theologians, now doctrinal and administrative authority was centred on Rome.
At the Second Vatican Council the assembled bishops largely challenged the centralisation that had developed, articulated by bishops like Cardinal Leo Suenens and Bishop Emiel-Jozef De Smedt in their critique of clericalism. Vatican conservatives opposed their call for decentralisation.
This potential impasse was resolved by two carefully worded documents, Lumen Gentium (1964) and Christus Dominus (1965). The documents stressed the historic collegiality of all bishops, while emphasising that this collegiality could never exist without the pope. All bishops were equal, sharing in the apostolic succession traced back to Peter and the Twelve. Each bishop was the head of the local Church in his diocese and in communion with all his brother bishops, including the bishop of Rome. They all had the right and duty to preach and to teach the Gospel, and to govern their local Church – but always with and never apart from the pope.
In addition, the Council emphasised the importance of conferences of bishops that would have specific jurisdiction over territories—sometimes countries (such as the United States, Germany) and sometimes regions (such as Southern Africa, Asia), particularly in areas of concern like the implementation of liturgy translations, administration of ministries and justice and peace.
In the wake of Vatican II many of these conferences interpreted this to mean a greater regional autonomy than many in Rome liked. There has been a growing move towards re-centralisation as a result.
Other reforms the Council implemented included the move towards Councils of Bishops to discuss change and implementation in Church policies, including continental synods to help the Church engage with the “signs of the times”. Here, in theory at least, the great “unity in diversity” of contemporary Catholicism could be celebrated.
All these reforms have been unevenly implemented. Some observers have even suggested that in the last 25 years there has been a drift back towards “Vatican centralism”. The influence of bishops’ conferences has been limited, they suggest, by Roman directives that often curtail innovative local developments in theology and Church practice.
Central to this, the fiercest critics say, has been in the continued appointment of bishops by Rome, chosen (they argue) primarily for their sympathy to a highly centralised model of church. The critics call this a “branch manager” model of episcopate.
If the critics are right then we would be seeing an erosion of the model of collegiality implemented by Vatican II. It would also indicate a kind of “siege mentality” among those who have the ministry of oversight in the Church at a time when many of us see the need for innovative and constructive engagement with the postmodern world.
The historical vision of the ministry of bishops offers us hope however. Bishops’ roles have changed over time, meeting the needs of the people of God in often difficult situations. They can and will change again as the needs arise.
As successors of the Apostles it has been their calling to lead the Church in turbulent times.
I just caught sight of a development that speaks to Fr Egan’s reflection above. It has to do with the role of a Bishop as supreme pastor … to do with their pastoral role of authentic “listening,” in particular.
And what is this development? Well, the Association of United States Priests have recently issued a call for re-examination of liturgical translation … it raises the important question: “will our Bishops //listen//?” Or are they “branch managers,” there to simply implement the desires of “The Vatican,” come what may? Have the bright lights like Archbishop Denis Hurley been all but extinguished? (Four Bishops have been sacked in +/- the past year … it must give those Bishops who wish to speak out pause for thought, hey!)
See http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/07/14/association-of-us-catholic-priests-calls-for-reexamination-of-liturgical-translation/ and the asscoiated comments (well worth a browse, in my humble opinion!) … here’s the statement …
The New Roman Missal
•Whereas Canon 278§1 asserts: “Secular clerics have the right to associate with others to pursue purposes in keeping with the clerical state”; and
•Whereas Canon 298§1 includes clerics among the Christian faithful; and
•Whereas Canon 212§3 states: “According to the knowledge, competence and prestige which they possess, they [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons”; and
•Whereas Canon 215 declares: “The Christian faithful are at liberty freely to found and direct associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion of the Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common pursuit of these purposes”; and
•Whereas Canon 218 affirms: “Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church”; and
•Whereas Bishops are guaranteed collegial powers and responsibilities documented in the Vatican II Decree, Christus Dominus, [especially in ¶s 2 through 6], thereby preserving the integrity of their Apostolic Office. A reference from ¶2 points out: “Bishops, therefore, have been made true and authentic teachers of the faith, pontiffs, and pastors through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to them”; and
•Whereas the Missale Romanum, Editio Typica Tertia [herein, New Roman Missal] has caused disharmony, disruption and discord among many, for both laity [including religious non-clerical men and women], and for clerics, in our Church, frustrating rather than inspiring the Eucharistic prayer experience of the Christian faithful, thus leading to less piety and to less “full, active and conscious participation” in the Mass, [cf. Canons 898 and 899 §s 2 and 3 and Vatican II Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, ¶11 and 14]; and
•Whereas the New Roman Missal, as we have experienced it in our day to day celebrations of the Eucharist with the faithful, has created pastoral problems, in particular because of its cumbersome style, arcane vocabulary, grammatical anomalies, and confusing syntax;
Be it resolved that the Association of United States Catholic Priests urge our Bishops, who are also our Pastors, to exercise their collegial powers and responsibilities by addressing in a collegial way, with the appropriate Vatican authorities, the problematic prescriptions of Liturgiam authenticam which brought about the New Roman Missal.
A very poignant article shedding a more personal insight into the tensions experienced by a Bishop can be found at http://ncronline.org/blogs/soul-seeing/scotch-midnight-bishop-paris .
I found this article to be quite heart-rending.
It recalls a midnight discussion over a glass of scotch between two men who had been fellow seminarians four decades earlier. The one ended up Bishop of a small diocese in the USA. Here are some excerpts …
“”Tell me,” I say. “If you had to give a seminarian today one piece of advice, what would you say?”
Morrie takes a sip. “Don’t settle,” he says. “Life is too short. Fly your kite and don’t take any crap.”
“Fly your what and what?”
“When I was in the seminary I spent two summers counseling at a camp for kids who were wards of the state. At the end of the camp season the priest handed out all these little trophies for the best athletes — best swimmer, best water skier, best ballplayer, fastest this, strongest that. There was nothing for the non-athlete — the puny kid or the fat kid or just the slow or arty kid. So when I got to be in charge the next summer, I saved the best award, a new one, for last. I gave out the first Soren Kierkegaard Award for the Boy Unafraid to Go Against the Crowd. It went to 12-year-old Jabbo Jablonski who even though he wasn’t the toughest kid in the group always stood up for the kids who were bullied. He never did anything just because everyone else did. He did what he thought was right, no matter the cost to himself. You know, I was never prouder than the day I handed that trophy, with the inscription Fly Your Kite and Don’t Take Any Crap, to Jabbo Jablonski.”
“That’s sweet, Morrie.”
“I’m getting old.”
“We all are.”
“Too old to change, you know.”
“Why’s that?”
“Life is too short.”
It’s time to change the subject. “What do you make of the nuns’ revolt?” I ask. “What’s your stand?”
“Can’t stand ‘em. The way they look at me. Judging all the time. They should walk a mile in my shoes.”
“What’s the hardest part about wearing your shoes?”
“The criticism. It’s constant. It kills.”
“From the sisters?”
“No, most of it comes from the far right, you know: Opus Dei, Republicans, fringe groups like that. The nuns don’t criticize. They just stare at you with those hot grey eyes that can burn through walls.”
We’re silent as we sip our glasses dry. “More?” I ask.
“No más,” he says. “I’m tired.”
“Tell me something,” I ask Morrie, “just one more thing.”
“Who are you now, Columbo?”
“Just one last thing, please. Tell me: Why do so many bishops pretend to be so unyielding against contraception, divorce, homosexuality and even masturbation when you know they’ll tell a friend something completely different over Scotch at midnight during the Bewitching Hour?”
Morrie slips lower in his chair and waves his glass like a surrender flag. “It’s no secret, you know. It’s what Eugene Kennedy calls the pain of being human. We spend our whole lives, not just bishops but all of us, making up histories and personalities we think will protect us from the world. Don’t kid yourself. The world is a horrible place. It’s all about self-defense. You make yourself up all the time and you can’t go back, you know. To deny what you’ve been your whole life would put your whole existence in doubt. Your past life would be worthless. You can’t do that. You wouldn’t exist anymore.”
“What would happen if you did?”
“You’d be free. But you wouldn’t exist.”
“I understand. But wouldn’t it be good for somebody to stand up and cancel the soap opera?”
“Somebody is,” he answers.
“Who?” I ask. “Jabbo Jablonski?”
“No,” Morrie says. “Those revolting nuns.” “
Yet another excellent article, this time as regards the episcopal unfoldings in Australia, speaks to some of the issues alluded to in Fr Egan’s article above.
See http://ncronline.org/news/global/australia-distances-demographics-disaffection-underlie-tales-resigned-bishops
It seems that a sense of despair has led to some episcopal resignations “down under”. The three bishops mentioned in this article were all about fostering a climate/spirit of “open discussion” about the issues of the day. For this they each essentially became /persona non grata/. How stultifiying, and how so very sad.
A snippet from the article …
“Against this backdrop … play out the stories of three resigned bishops: Sydney Auxiliary Bishop Geoffrey Robinson (born 1937), Toowoomba Bishop William Morris (born 1943), and Canberra Auxiliary Bishop Patrick Power (born 1942). All three wanted to talk about the elephants in the episcopal palaces. All three found it rough going. All three resigned, more or quite less voluntarily.
Their issues are not peculiar to Australia, and resonate around the world. Each bishop wants them openly discussed. Yet the Vatican’s response to suggestions of even discussing married priests, human sexuality, and the ordination of women is automatic. When combined with suggestions about causes of priestly pederasty, or the necessity of general absolution because of sheer distances and numbers, the Vatican’s response seems even faster.
…
Power’s understanding of the discussions echoing throughout Australia — just this month he joined an interfaith coalition criticizing [Cardinal] Pell’s denial of climate change — are often centered on priestly celibacy, church teachings on sexuality and the role of women. Like Morris, Power wants Catholics to talk about these things. He has said the Vatican’s “inability to listen” combined with clerical sex abuse and the increasing priest shortage present the church’s “most vexing issues.” “
See the recent ABC interview with Bishop power at http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3523782.htm …
EMMA ALBERICI: Was your decision in any way influenced by a kind of sense of frustration about the Vatican’s absolute opposition to reform of the Catholic doctrine?
PATRICK POWER: I’d have to say that that is greatly disappointing to me, Emma, the fact that I think the Second Vatican Council gave some wonderful opportunities for reform and new life within the Church, and I was ordained a priest in 1965 – which was the year that the Second Vatican Council concluded – and my four years of theological training was during those four years of the Second Vatican Council. So when I came out as a young priest at the end of 1965, the whole notion of collegiality; the notion of the empowering of lay people; the place of women in the Church; the relation with the other churches; a healthier relationship with the wider community; all of those things I think were greatly promoted. Whereas I feel in the last few years we’ve really resiled from many of those important reforms, and I think the Church is less healthy as a result. That, though, is not the reason why I’m retiring, and I believe that even after retirement that I will still be able to have some influence in the life of the Church. But it will be within the Church that I do it.
EMMA ALBERICI: You’ve lamented there a kind of lack of… or the opportunity for a healthier relationship with the community. What do you mean by that?
PATRICK POWER: Well, I think that it’s very important to listen and to be in a relationship with people, and I think if I’ve had any strength as a priest and as a bishop, it’s because I’ve maintained those relationships with people at the grassroots – and I think if we are to serve people I think it’s very important that we listen to them, and I think if we’re going to bring the message of Christ to people, we must bring it to them in a way that is relating to their life and not in some abstract sort of way.
EMMA ALBERICI: Now, you are widely acknowledged as one of the most reformist bishops in Australia. Why is it so important to you that the Catholic Church does embrace change?
PATRICK POWER: There’s a little saying that I have from Cardinal Newman, and it says that in a higher order it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often. And I think if we’re not able to adapt, I think we’re really talking about living in the past rather than acknowledging what are the issues in today’s world and in people’s real lives today, and I think that’s really important that we do that.
EMMA ALBERICI: How widespread is that view within the Church?
PATRICK POWER: I’d say that at the higher echelons in the Church that there’s a real shutting down of any possibilities of change. But where I see wonderful opportunities for change are at the grass roots, and there are many small groups within the life of the Church. I see it very much among young people. I’ve just come tonight from doing two sessions of confirmation in the south of Canberra, and every time I do confirmation, you know, with the young people themselves, with those who are preparing them, you can see the life of the spirit very much present there. I was at three of the high schools in Canberra – Catholic high schools – in the last couple of weeks, and the same thing there: they’re very much alive, and I believe real reform is going to come from the grassroots in that way, and I think it’s important that those of us who are further up the chain, that we very much listen to the voice of the spirit at that level.
EMMA ALBERICI: So are you saying that in some respects the hierarchy is out of touch with the grass roots?
PATRICK POWER: I’m quite sure of that, and I’m not being too critical of my brother bishops in saying that. I’ve had a lovely relationship with them and I think they’ve been very tolerant with me too, by the way, and supported me in a very brotherly way, and I think many of them have seen me as a voice for what is deep in their hearts as well. And I know that there are many ways of skinning a cat too; that they probably see a more diplomatic approach to Rome might be more productive. But I think it’s important that those people at the grassroots who are crying out to be listened to, that someone will give voice to their very real concerns.
EMMA ALBERICI: Now, priestly celibacy is a topic you have said must be discussed. Why?
PATRICK POWER: Well, I think it’s very obvious that we’re calling on a very small pool of people now that in order to fill the ranks of the priesthood, and in our diocese we’re in quite a desperate position for priests. The diocese of Wilcannia Forbes, that occupies 52 per cent of the area of NSW, that’s practically in a state of collapse, and part of all that is the lack of clergy. And yet I wrote to the Pope in November of 2010 and suggested that each of those parishes in Wilcannia Forbes, there be suitable married men, with some preparation, if they could be received into the priesthood that it would very much enable priestly ministry to be exercised and the Eucharist to be made available to people who otherwise would be deprived of it. I’m not saying we abolish celibacy, but I think there should be a married clergy alongside a celibate clergy as well.
EMMA ALBERICI: What was the response to that letter?
PATRICK POWER: They just don’t want to hear that sort of message and…
EMMA ALBERICI: Was there a response?
PATRICK POWER: Not directly. I had a little conversation with the Apostolic Nuncio about it, but there was no written response. And I’ve written similar letters to that pretty well all the time I’ve been a bishop, and I’ve got to say in my own seminary class about half of the people that I was ordained with have left active ministry and have married, and many of those would be very suitable to continue as very effective priests, and I would say that the wives would be a very important part of the contribution they’d make as well.
EMMA ALBERICI: Have you over the years wished you’d been allowed to marry?
PATRICK POWER: Yes, I have, I have. But I’m not really, I suppose, speaking out of my own personal desires; I made a commitment to celibacy and I realise I have to honour that. But having said that, I’ve seen, as I say, many of my friends who have married and have had very fruitful and loving marriages and have still continued to make quite an important contribution in society, but sadly have been not able to have any official ministry in the life of the Church.
EMMA ALBERICI: If we can move to a topic that touches this one, I’m interested to know if you count yourself among a growing chorus of senior members of the clergy around the world now who have made a link between celibacy and clerical sexual abuse?
PATRICK POWER: Yes, I think it’s a tenuous link just the same, Emma. I think that much of the sexual abuse… I’m not saying it’s caused by celibacy, I’ve never said that, but I do think that in that whole climate I don’t think that we’ve, within the Church, got a healthy attitude towards sexuality, and I remember going to court one time to give some hope of a lighter sentence for one of my classmates that was going down for that, and I pointed out that in the seminary we were very poorly prepared for a celibate life, and I think in many ways it’s all about relationships and where priests are denied healthy relationships that they’d have within marriage, that at times there can be the temptation to find comfort in other areas. But I would never suggest that celibacy is the cause of sexual abuse, but I do believe that in the light of that whole sexual abuse crisis that we face, that we’ve got to look at reform in all sorts of areas, and that too means very much being a more open Church than I think we are today.
EMMA ALBERICI: Now, Wim Deetman, who was the former education minister in the Netherlands and Christian Democrat leader, in a recent 1,100 page report on child sex abuse in the Catholic Church, he said that actually there was a very clear connection between celibacy and “transgressive clergy” is what he called it. How seriously do you think the Vatican takes those kinds of findings – those kinds of large reports and conclusions?
PATRICK POWER: Oh, I think the Vatican is taking those things seriously. I think we look at the… I’m not across what’s happening in Holland there but certainly with regard to what has happened in Ireland and in the United States, I think they are taking very seriously what’s happening there. But I think there still does need to be a whole lot more done to examine those issues more closely, and one of the things I’d suggest is that women should be much more involved in coming to some better conclusions about all of that, and that would be one of my big criticisms about the way that the Church is structured at the moment. Even leaving aside the whole question of the ordination of women, that I think that women should be very much part of the decision-making in the life of the Church, and I think the issue you’re talking about now is one in which women have a tremendously important role to play – and I think that’s probably one of the reasons why there has been so much sexual abuse too, because of the absence of women in the whole equation.
EMMA ALBERICI: What sort of a role would you advocate for women in the Catholic Church?
PATRICK POWER: Well, certainly what I’m saying with regard to the decision-making, I think even the question of the ordination of women, I think we should be examining that more closely as well, but I think even in terms of Church governance and the decision-making and how all those conclusions are reached, if they’re all males that are making those decisions, well it’s going to be very skewed – and I’d say that that’s part of the lack of balance that there is in the life of the Church today, the absence of the voices of women.
EMMA ALBERICI: Are you in favour of female ordination? Your own personal perspective?
PATRICK POWER: I’m very open to it, I must say that, and I think that we need to look very closely at it – and certainly the best biblical scholars would say that there are no real scriptural reasons why women shouldn’t be ordained, and I very much believe we should be examining it far more closely than we are.
EMMA ALBERICI: Now the Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Bertoni, sparked an outrage a few weeks ago when he argued there was no relationship between celibacy and child sex abuse, but that there was a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. Is that the kind of sentiment that’s going to engage more people with the Church or alienate more people, in your view?
PATRICK POWER: I would say definitely it would alienate them, and I think that is an example of someone out of touch with what the realities of life are today. I think we should be doing much more to embrace homosexual people and help them to be part of the life of the Church, because so often I think what we’re doing is just making the confines of the Church even more and more narrow, and the word Catholic means “universal and all-embracing” and I think often the reality is the very opposite of that. I think we do… we need to do a whole lot more to engage homosexual people, and I think we do… we need to do a whole lot more too, in examining the Catholic teaching not just on homosexuality but on sexuality generally, and that covers a lot of what we’ve been talking about.
EMMA ALBERICI: Are you confident that change might come in your lifetime at the very top echelons of the Catholic Church, or do you think it’s more likely that we will see a fracturing of the Catholic Church around the world, with breakaway groups forming here and there?
PATRICK POWER: I’m sure that some of that is already happening, Emma, but one of my great hopes when I became a bishop was to try and be a bridge builder. And the word pontiff, or pontifex, that’s exactly what it means, and I’m someone that strongly believes we should be trying to build bridges and I tried to do that at all levels, and I’d certainly want to keep all those lines of communication open with the Vatican as well as with the people at the grassroots, because I think more and more – not just in the Church but in the world generally – I think we need to be talking to each other, we need to be engaged in dialogue, and we need very much to listen and to do it in a spirit of humility.
In Luke 18:8 Jesus Christ asked “But yet the Son of man, when he comes, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” This is an interesting question especially if one takes some time to look at what Christianity really is as proclaimed by Jesus and what morden man has transformed it to be. At the heart of all He said was a statement that bellows through the ages to our day “repent and believe the good news”. This good news was always proclaimed as the forgiveness of the sin of man through the Son of God, who took up human flesh in the mystery of the hypostatic union to just so He could ransom man from bondage in sin.
As the years come and go and as we progress with our self-actualisation and defense of our “rights”, I wonder sometimes if we take the meaning of life seriously. Biblical freedom has nothing to do with self-actualisation but rather the freeing of man from the curse of thinking that “Me and my rights are at the center of the universe” to thinking that “God is at the center of the universe”. Take for instance the example of the prophets Jonah and Elisha; these two were compelled not by their choices to do the Will of God but rather by an act of God. Is this unfair? In the world today this would labeled as ‘abuse’ but if one considers the truth of salvation history from the time of Abraham, one finds in these two examples the greatest act of God’s mercy. Rather than being happy for a few man’s years they were granted a chance to look into being happy with God for life eternal where God will their light and they will bear His name on their foreheads.
Jesus said to Simon and him alone, “I name you Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I give you (Peter/ Cephas) the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose”. He later added after asking him thrice that “do you love me Peter?” that feed my sheep. For there will be one flock, one shepherd and one Baptism. Was Jesus saying to Peter you have the power to bind in Rome only and that you are a rock to Rome only? Is that really the meaning of Luke 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22? He was told by Jesus that “I have prayed for you and when you recover, You shall strengthen your brothers”.
You know power corrupts those who have it and destroys those who are lured by it for at the heart of concupiscence is pride, jelousy and the desire for power. When we forget or cause ourselves to forget why we are Christians and why Jesus came to die for us we begin to innovate and to believe that we are holier than Jesus and we add our own voices to doctrine. Is it really the Church that needs reform or it is us who claim to be faithful who stand in need of repentance. St Paul says I delight in my weakness, for when I am weak then I am strong meaning I begin to understand who I am and who God is.
What I am trying to get to here is that the hierarchy in the Church is God’s design; one Lord, one flock and one baptism kept in unity by the successor of St Peter. This is how the Church remained united and this is how we braved the test of heresies that have coagulated in our day to the synthesis of all heresies and disbelief – Modernism. Man is plagued with concupiscence and if left to his own devices will always revert to idol worship as they did in the desert after Moses had climbed the mountain of the Lord. We should take comfort in Jesus’s assurance that “the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church”. The pope is the head of the Church because Jesus said so; he has the power of the keys when he speaks ex cathedra – for a person willing to live for Heaven ‘this knowledge is enough’, remember He never asked anyone to understand He just gave the gift for the good of the Church.
@ Joseph
[snip] “what Christianity really is as proclaimed by Jesus”.
My question to you is: did Jesus come to proclaim Christianity as envisaged by Joseph?
Jesus gave us his clear mandate for coming (which has almost nothing to do with ‘christianity’ as we individually define it): Luke :4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.
English Standard Version (©2001)
[I favour the version that interprets ‘proclaim’ as ‘bring’! - IOW a hands-on mission!]
So any proclamation of ‘repenting’ (for me) is to understand and live a life of giving a preferential option to the poor primarily and has little to do with personal ‘sins’. IOW those who were poor, captives, blind and oppressed (in any way) were the objects for our ‘repentance’ from our own EGO’s. Jesus’ mandate pointed to the greatest sin of neglect of the poor, the sick, the widow, the orphan etc etc. in favour of our own comforts.
[snip] ”I wonder sometimes if we take the meaning of life seriously”. Is it the meaning of life that we should be taking seriously or the words of Jesus rather about the Kingdom of God being within that should be taken seriously?! The latter would lead naturally to God as the center of our being!
This teaching of the Kingdom of God being within (and my belief therein) explains to me the natural tension between what you interpret about keys and authority (and the way that you present them) and my conviction that Jesus never used the word ‘church’ as we know it today. It never existed in his time and would not have been presented to the disciples precisely as you would convey it – cast in concrete today!
[snip] “Is it really the Church that needs reform or it is us who claim to be faithful who stand in need of repentance”. If you do not understand that we are all church then you will never find the answer to your question (or accusation?!) We are all sinners and fail to be truly Christian as is witnessed by the cover up by many, many Bishops of the criminal behaviour of paedophile priestsl
As for your claim to know the mind of God in the statement about the hierarchy of the Church being God’s design [snip: the hierarchy in the Church is God’s design] is ludicrous. Why? because the ‘Old’ covenant was One God, a chosen people (exclusive) and circumcision (also exclusive of the other half of the ‘people’). Also, give thought to whether ‘Trinity’ is a hierarchy or not!
Furthermore, an intelligent comparison of the two covenant’s, we fall short of the ‘will of God’ right here, right now in this era of ‘one baptism’ as inclusive of ALL baptised. Women are still marginalised, in practice, from the One who is The Way, The Truth and The Life, who included women in His ministry.
Much of what you write is unclear as to the point you are trying to make that it would need a personal interaction to try and clarify.
Joseph muses as follows: “As the years come and go and as we progress with our self-actualisation and defense of our “rights”, I wonder sometimes if we take the meaning of life seriously.”
I thought that the Church (the People of God) was in general agreement about the right to life … or the sanctity of life, however one wants to put this particular defence of one of our most basic “rights”. Do you scoff at this “right,” Joseph?
I cannot help but notice, Jospeh, that you use US spelling (“defense,” “center,” etc) … perhaps you live in a country where hate crimes are not as prolific as they are here in Africa. Well, let me inform you that in recent weeks at least eight LGBTI people have been murdered in South Africa!
Let me illustrate the gross violations of human rights which are occurring by quoting from the recent article “67 Minutes of Shame: Homophobic Hate Crimes Go Unnoticed” (copyright The South African Civil Society Information Service (www.sacsis.org.za), see http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/1369 ).
“… recently two lesbians were kissing each other goodbye at the Carlton Centre in downtown Johannesburg. The guards told them they would never enter heaven because of the way they are. They were jeering at the couple. One of the women went over and asked them to explain themselves. She was brutally assaulted as the guards threw her out of the building. She has a heart condition and landed up in hospital.
Just this week a press statement released by Forum for the Empowerment of Women (FEW) and Gay Flag of South Africa, confirmed the murders of Thapelo Makhutle, a 24-year-old gay/trans individual who was mutilated and murdered in the Northern Cape; Neil Daniels, who was stabbed and set alight in Cape Town; 22-year-old Phumeza Nkolonzi from Nyanga, Cape Town, who was shot three times by a man who burst into her home; the killing of 28-year-old Sanna Supa in Braamficherville, Soweto; and the stabbing to death of 29-year-old Hendrietta Thapelo Morifi (Andritha) in Mokopane, Limpopo.
The silence from the mainstream is deafening. The silence from trade unions is deafening. The silence from the media is deafening. The silence from general civil society is deafening. But mostly the silence from the ANC is deafening.
In fact, it would seem that they are completely ignoring the issue of homophobic violence. The constitutional right to safety for all marginalised groups is not being enforced at all. And when the only response from government is to “distance itself” from to the homophobic utterances of tribal patriarch Patekile Holomisa, who recently actively campaigned for an end to sexual orientation protection in the Constitution, then the work done to end this violence is thwarted.”
Now, Joseph, you might be wondering what this particular issue has to do with the SACBC? Or their Justice and Peace commission.
Let me remind you that It was not all that long ago that an article appeared in the Southern Cross (6 October 2010, if memory serves me) … it was somewhat bewilderingly entitled ”Cardinal highlights courageous conversations.” The article reported that Cardinal Napier had said that much work needs to be done in terms of moral and ethical peacemaking in South Africa, placing emphasis on the ways politicians conduct their business through to emerging trends which he feels are immoral, including claims for the rights of homosexuals: “This is a sensitive subject, but ten years ago it was a perversion, then it becomes a human right and now it is an identity.”
Frankly, I was quite wounded by what I saw as a possible expression of wistful regret on the part of His Eminence that homosexuality is still not regarded as a perversion! I wonder if one can surmise that His Eminence might like to see gay love-relationships re-criminalized in South African law? Perhaps along the lines which Christian communities (including, apparently, the local Catholic Church) are advocating in Uganda [ala the proposed "kill the gays" bill].
Such a statement by a hierarch in a country where hate crimes perpetrated against LGBTI people often end up in the snuffing out of innocent life (simply because of a different sexual orientation to the mainstream) is, in my carefully assessed opinion, scandalous in the extreme. All the more so since it was not accompanied by an amelioratory caveat such as “the Church reminds us that “They [gay people] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” [CCC2358]”
Those who are killing gays simply because they are gay are viewing being gay as a perversion, and are possibly taking a Levitical view of matters … see Lev 20:13 … “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Our hierarchs should be wise enough not to fan the flames of homophobic hatred with their ill-considered utterances!!!
I passionately urge Southern African hierarchs to take a principled stand, in the light of the Good News, the Gospels … and to come out extremely strongly against the hate crimes which are being perpetrated against LGBTI people (people created in the Imago Dei), all the more so since these crimes appear to be escalating in frequency and severity.
A word or three against the unjust laws being advocated in Uganda wouldn’t go amiss, either. Fruits of the African Synod, and all that.
Thank you, Rosemary, for placing the “Christian mandate” in such clear context! Your feminine wisdom is truly a breath of fresh air!
It is also evident that those bishops who took part in the council have left the scene through old age or having been recalled to G-d. The Pope is one of the last Fathers who is still active. Once all the council Fathers have been replaced by younger prelates, there will be the possibility to have a good look at the council and see where it went wrong, and to correct the errors and its weaknesses. The traditionalists have argued all along that the council was not a holy cow and that the Church will have the obligation and duty to have another look at it. There is hope, great hope for the Church which is slowly being steered into calmer waters by the good Pope Benedict XVI.