as a catholic, however rebellious I sometimes feel, it distresses me to raise my voice against the hierarchy, but during this interregnum it seems somehow less culpable to do so, especially knowing that I am one among a goodly multitude..
I do accept the need for stability in the church and the need for firm steady leadership. I also accept the need to hear and to heed the voices on the right: those who find change both difficult and, more significantly, morally unacceptable.
Unity is paramount and has to be placed before any agenda for change.
I joined the church just after vatican ll. I read Hans Kung and could find no reason not to. To me it seemed that the counter-reformation was finally over. Luther had indeed made his point and been heard. The vernacular was finally embraced once and for all and places like Taize spoke of a real and vital ecumenism that pointed only one way. The evangelical movement was also being heeded and embraced. At least for a while.
In retrospect I can understand why there was a backlash. Why the hierarchy panicked. There were too many distant voices of dissent. People who were drowning in the changed church and needed more time.
That backlash, which so horrified me when I came back to England in 1986, has continued for 35 years. Less than the blink of an eye in the eyes of God and his ancient church of course.
In the Tablet editorial today they compare the church to a boat tacking against the wind . . . . .to the port, to the starboard, to the port, to the starboard.
I think there is a general sense now though that this present backlash has backlashed far enough. It is time to change tack and listen, with patience and as much common sense as a very ancient institution can muster, to the voices on both sides. It has been moving to port, but now it is time to move to starboard again - before it is too late. One day it may be possible to stop tacking altogether and travel as the crow flies. . . .
The roman impulse to equate unity with uniformity needs to be curtailed once more, as vatican ll had always intended.
Diversity has to be cherished and nurtured. Mere chilly acceptance is insufficient. Collegiality also. Benedict has made an important step in 'standing down' because it means that the papal role becomes instantly less "mystical": administrative competence above mere spiritual presence. Although I can see how this might eventually go too far, things can change a great deal before there is any danger of this.
There needs to be serious and open discussion about all the issues of the day. The church needs to be seen to be talking and thinking about women, about democracy, about homosexuality, sexuality and celibacy in general, about transparence, and about structural reform. Things that everyone else has had to wrestle with for years.
There needs to be much clearer delineation between the things that Really Matter, and things that are merely clerical legalities that cling through mere habit.
I never did understand Benedict's obsession with relativism. Relativism is a fact of life. We do have to live alongside people of all faiths and none and I thought that Vatican ll did understand that language does have it's limitations, however carefully it is used; that the catholic church does not possess some kind of monopoly on truth; and that what we understand about God and His ways is limited and insubstantial. Like everybody else we muddle through.
Nor do I like a politicised church. I accept that everyone has the right to speak their mind on every issue. But we as catholics have no right whatever to impose our views on those who do not believe nor should there be any attempt to silence those who disagree - especially scholars.
Attempting to manipulate the political life of a country through threats and blackmail, as seems to be happening in America through strictures on the catholic universities, seems counter to the primary law of love. To condone it, as the hierarchy seems to have done, seems to me a grave error of judgement.
Finally, the hierarchy needs to trust its people. Only then will the people feel more able to trust its hierarchy. The gap between laity and clergy needs to close and the pomp and circumstance of Rome could be hugely curtailed without any loss of liturgical integrity.
Red shoes and tiaras? please no!
now is the time to dream . . . . . .
I do accept the need for stability in the church and the need for firm steady leadership. I also accept the need to hear and to heed the voices on the right: those who find change both difficult and, more significantly, morally unacceptable.
Unity is paramount and has to be placed before any agenda for change.
I joined the church just after vatican ll. I read Hans Kung and could find no reason not to. To me it seemed that the counter-reformation was finally over. Luther had indeed made his point and been heard. The vernacular was finally embraced once and for all and places like Taize spoke of a real and vital ecumenism that pointed only one way. The evangelical movement was also being heeded and embraced. At least for a while.
In retrospect I can understand why there was a backlash. Why the hierarchy panicked. There were too many distant voices of dissent. People who were drowning in the changed church and needed more time.
That backlash, which so horrified me when I came back to England in 1986, has continued for 35 years. Less than the blink of an eye in the eyes of God and his ancient church of course.
In the Tablet editorial today they compare the church to a boat tacking against the wind . . . . .to the port, to the starboard, to the port, to the starboard.
I think there is a general sense now though that this present backlash has backlashed far enough. It is time to change tack and listen, with patience and as much common sense as a very ancient institution can muster, to the voices on both sides. It has been moving to port, but now it is time to move to starboard again - before it is too late. One day it may be possible to stop tacking altogether and travel as the crow flies. . . .
The roman impulse to equate unity with uniformity needs to be curtailed once more, as vatican ll had always intended.
Diversity has to be cherished and nurtured. Mere chilly acceptance is insufficient. Collegiality also. Benedict has made an important step in 'standing down' because it means that the papal role becomes instantly less "mystical": administrative competence above mere spiritual presence. Although I can see how this might eventually go too far, things can change a great deal before there is any danger of this.
There needs to be serious and open discussion about all the issues of the day. The church needs to be seen to be talking and thinking about women, about democracy, about homosexuality, sexuality and celibacy in general, about transparence, and about structural reform. Things that everyone else has had to wrestle with for years.
There needs to be much clearer delineation between the things that Really Matter, and things that are merely clerical legalities that cling through mere habit.
I never did understand Benedict's obsession with relativism. Relativism is a fact of life. We do have to live alongside people of all faiths and none and I thought that Vatican ll did understand that language does have it's limitations, however carefully it is used; that the catholic church does not possess some kind of monopoly on truth; and that what we understand about God and His ways is limited and insubstantial. Like everybody else we muddle through.
Nor do I like a politicised church. I accept that everyone has the right to speak their mind on every issue. But we as catholics have no right whatever to impose our views on those who do not believe nor should there be any attempt to silence those who disagree - especially scholars.
Attempting to manipulate the political life of a country through threats and blackmail, as seems to be happening in America through strictures on the catholic universities, seems counter to the primary law of love. To condone it, as the hierarchy seems to have done, seems to me a grave error of judgement.
Finally, the hierarchy needs to trust its people. Only then will the people feel more able to trust its hierarchy. The gap between laity and clergy needs to close and the pomp and circumstance of Rome could be hugely curtailed without any loss of liturgical integrity.
Red shoes and tiaras? please no!
now is the time to dream . . . . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment