I’ve been giving a lot of thought to certain tensions in the Church at the moment, and my clearest impression is that people are not really hearing one another speak. It troubles me when this happens. The Church has divided in the past–really divided–along language and cultural lines. So with prayers for guidance to St. Maximus the Confessor, I thought I would mention a couple of things that the different “sides” are saying, perhaps in a more “American” way, in case it helps mutual understanding.
Of course I may well be misinterpreting everything myself, but here goes.
Pope Francis has expressed several concerns that I don’t feel have been heard.
- Some people live in concrete situations in which it is nearly impossible to reconcile with the Church under current law. Consider, for example, the following scenario. A spouse, abandoned, for financial and other reasons, formed a common-law relationship with someone else. Children were born from the new relationship. There are compelling reasons, including economic and parenting reasons concerning the children, for them to stay together in the same household. The abandoned spouse now wishes to reconcile with the Church, but the other person does not, and moreover that person refuses to consider living as brother and sister.
- These irregular situations disadvantage the poor and uneducated in a way they don’t the powerful and well-connected. There is such a thing as advantage and preferment in the Church, and there can be an inability of the poor to seek solutions to the same degree.
- There is a spiritual principle that Jesus mentions a number of times in the Gospel and in different ways, having to do with pride and self-righteousness. It can happen that a person is unable or unwilling to admit to his or her own sinfulness, and seeks to stand on acceptably high moral ground by comparing him/herself to others. (Though this claim can sometimes be taken too far, by Girardians in particular, I would say), there can be a danger of scapegoating others precisely to avoid looking at one’s own sins. This is not my idea, nor the Holy Father’s, but the Lord’s.
- I know instances of heroism on the part of Catholics. I’d imagine everyone does. The man with homosexual inclinations who remains chaste and single, the permanently abandoned wife who avoids re-establishing a dating life, the busy and exhausted cleric who nonetheless meets multiple times with each engaged couple to ensure they are prepared for the Sacrament of Matrimony. There are spouses who have forgiven what seems like far too much without counting, and have struggled and persevered through to truly happy marriages. These silent and hidden lives of sacrifice are a kind of treasure in the Church, raising the whole like leaven.
- There are saints who to English-speaking Catholics are dearly held models of civil disobedience under enormous pressure to conform. St. Thomas More’s excellence in every area is known and cherished, even in the secular world.
- There has been a demographic shift in the generations since Vatican II, an odd reverse-generation-gap. Young people over the past 2 pontificates have been successfully challenged to live heroically. The flourishing religious orders attest to this maxim: demand more of young people, and they will respond. Those who were young adults in the 60s and 70s still seem to be playing a strategy that failed, of asking as little as possible of young people, who are naturally idealistic and generous–and hungry for community.
- The Holy Father’s convictions have often been expressed in ways that belittle others.
- The sinful character of re-marriages is Gospel truth, and a pontificate who would reverse the Church’s constant teaching and practice on the subject would seem to be acting in a way that contradicts both scripture and tradition. In a post-papal-resignation Church, this is a tinderbox.
Here I want to add something: both the image of the shepherd and that of the fisherman issue an explicit call to unity. “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must lead them too, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16); these are the words of Jesus at the end of his discourse on the Good Shepherd. And the account of the 153 large fish ends with the joyful statement: “although there were so many, the net was not torn” (Jn 21:11). Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn! But no – we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!
- The worst rupture in Christianity is always very tantalizingly close to being healed. The Orthodox Churches are true Churches with valid priesthood and Eucharist. Not much is necessary to overcome our differences, one might think. There is little talk of forced conversions anymore, after all. The Filioque, some (not I) would say, is perfectly dispensible. The liturgical differences (which seem to me to be enormous) can be written off as diverse cultural expressions, some might say. But there is a great disparity in marriage law, on just this point of divorce and remarriage.
Yes but… I've been giving a lot of thought to certain tensions in the Church at the moment, and my clearest impression is that people actually *are* really hearing one another speak – and are now penetrating the fog of obfuscation that many have attempted to set up around their own words in the past..
Dear sister in Christ, Kathleen,
Much of what you have written above is geared to the Church of Rome. Being Orthodox, the observations you make of Orthodoxy I can comment on.
The biggest thing about the filioque is the arrogance of the Church of Rome to change an agreed upon creed. No one denies the intention of the Spanish Bishops to fight Arianism. However then the duplicity enters in: How is it that when the Patriarchs of the East attend a Roman Liturgy the Vatican does NOT use the filioque in the Creed? If it is still a valid (original) creed then why not drop it all the time and eliminate one more stumbling block to unity? That does not mean that the understanding of the procession from the Father does not have to be dealt with theologically. But many in the East have held that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. And the Latin and Greek words for "proceed" do not mean exactly the same thing thereby creating two theologies …not the same.
The Liturgical expressions in East and West have widened since Vatican II. It appears that in the rush to make Protestants feel at home Rome ignored the greater patrimony it shared with the East. The physical layout of a Roman church still bore traces of a common development: the communion rail in the West was similar to the iconostasis in the East. The placement of the statues in most Roman churches (Christ on the right, Mary on the left) was similar to the canonical placement of those icons! The great tradition of facing East for the liturgy and the appropriate liturgical chant (Gregorian) that appeared to be jettisoned after the Vat II Council….all these things were loses not only to Rome but the universal Church. Most Roman Catholics would not know that the Russian bishops stated that they saw in the old pre-Vat II Mass a grace-filled (valid) Orthodox Liturgy! All of the banal excesses after the council just made Orthodox step back.
The fact that Orthodoxy continues the ancient tradition of a married priesthood also means that there is also a sober evaluation of the many problems of married life and a very pastoral way to deal with the reality of divorce and remarriage. Let's face it…in the Orthodox approach prayers of repentance are said at the second marriage indicating that the divorced person has sinned and fallen short of the goal. In the Catholic approach we play "let's pretend" that a marriage never existed in the first place, no repentance is necessary, and the bride wears virginal white again as the sacrament is again conferred. The Catholic theology states that the wife and husband are the ministers of the sacrament…one wonders if they have the authority to confect the sacrament, do they also have the authority to break it? In Orthodoxy it is the priest, as an icon of Christ who joins the bride and groom together.
I offer the above not as judgment but as a way of facilitating discussion.
The filioque is the smallest problem. Orthodox belief on remarriage and birth control in marriage are in direct contradiction to current Roman doctrine.
Your Eminence, thank you for opening this discussion.
I agree that there was a great linguistic misunderstanding regarding the word "procession" in Latin and Greek. As I understand it, ekporeuesis (sp?) means "coming forth from the originating source." In the Trinity, this word can only be applied to the Father. The Latin "procedit" is much broader. St. Thomas Aquinas and others failed to notice this distinction between the two terms.
Regarding Liturgy, I believe that the Council has not yet been fully received at this point. More work is necessary to recover what was lost in post-conciliar committee work. The Council document itself is much different than the rapidly implemented changes would imply.
Thank you again, Archbishop.
As I understand it the teaching of the Orthodox Churches on marriage is in some ways more rigourous than that of the Catholic Church, for example a sacramental marriage is in their view not terminated by the death of a spouse. What differs more obviously is the treatment of those who wish to enter a second marriage. I certainly think the Catholic Church should examine this difference carefully, and respectfully. We would need to as part of reuniting anyway, and we might learn something.
Another aspect of marriage we should look at is what to do about people in a polygamous marriage who wish to become Christians. Is it morally justifiable to demand that a man cast off women in a position of dependance on him and whom he has legitimately promised to support?
After all the stated position of the church can change, as with slavery.
Let's keep this going; it's quite interesting. My family immigrated from the Balkan States and were Orthodox. As I have aged I am more and more curious about the differences between the Churches of the East and West.
One thing for sure is that this pope has caused scandal, leading more of the laity to question any of his statements. I recall once being told by the press (right…) that Francis was suffering from a benign brain tumor. If there is any truth to this I am wondering if this is causing the lack of inhibition regarding his statements. And, he is now 80 and eligible for retirement. We shall see.
It's pretty interesting that Pope Emeritus Benedict is still functioning well at 85. I do believe that the fact that we have 2 popes in essence has kept us from further disharmony as Benedict prays intently for the church in his retirement. I miss him. As the pope who followed JP II "The Great" he is missed as a visible leader and still speaks validly and without confusion.
I know Catholics who are sure that Francis is not at all in line with the church and who are looking elsewhere for their spiritual nourishment, even as middle aged people. That is a pretty hefty statement about the lack of trust that they have in our leader to keep us in line with the Word of Jesus rather than kowtowing to the relativistically oriented personalities that are trying to destroy our ancient beliefs.