Debate in the Church
The letters columns of many Catholic publications–even those that are less lively than The Southern Cross’–seem to affirm the notion that consensus on many issues within the Catholic Church is hard to come by.
Criticism by good and loyal Catholics about Church governance is often called “loyal opposition”. This is a double-edged term, a badge of honour to some and a flagrant insult for others. Terms such as “progressives” and “conservatives” are readily bandied about as if these implied factional manifestoes rather than shades of opinion. The battlelines are imprecisely drawn. The controversial Swiss theologian Fr Hans Küng, for example, may be a voice for reform where matters such as papal authority are concerned. On some matters of morality, however, he is said to be conservative. For many Catholics generally considered “conservative”, the status quo should remain unassailable, while opposition to any Church teaching—solemnly defined or reformable—is seen as rebellious and disloyal.
Clearly, solemnly defined doctrine cannot be opposed. The deposit of faith defines our Catholicism. Yet, in the vast body of Church teachings, there are many areas that are reformable—which means future popes have the authority and means to modify them.
One recent pope who did so in a significant way was John XXIII. Despite the opposition of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (who headed what is now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Pope John called the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II, as the Council is often called, opened the way to a wide range of dialogue about matter previously held to be beyond discussion.
Doubtless guided by the Holy Spirit, Pope John introduced an alternative to the pre-Vatican II philosophy of “error knows no rights”. Indeed, Vatican II proceeded to introduce to the Church a whole new mindset, incorporating many teachings which only a few years previously would have been regarded as “error”.
In recent years, the Church leadership has been less tolerant of perceived dissent than John XXIII and the Council Fathers had envisaged. Some say that Pope John Paul justifiably pulled the emergency brake on uncontrolled debate, and restored a semblance of cohesion in the Church.
This may well be so. The consequent stifling of debate concerning issues of reformable doctrine (such as, say, the question of priestly celibacy) is, however, regrettable. Where Vatican II had envisaged Church governance to incorporate an episcopal college to advise the pope on matters of grave importance, the post-Council reality has been one of the Roman curia assuming a more, not less, prescriptive role in Church governance. It is fair to presume that the Holy Spirit does not confine itself to a block of buildings in Rome, but works through all the faithful.
Healthy debate—conducted in a spirit of charity and love for the faith–will not damage the Church; it will help nourish the body of Christ.
While the central tenets of our faith—such as the salvific nature of Christ–have remained intact, the Church has changed profoundly in many ways over the centuries, mostly for the better.
Change and development is in the nature of all living organisms. If we believe that the Church has no more need for growth, we may as well declare it dead.
- The Look of Christ - May 24, 2022
- Putting Down a Sleeping Toddler at Communion? - March 30, 2022
- To See Our Good News - March 23, 2022