 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Sister Joan Chittister
from The National Catholic Reporter, 1999.
There's a phrase in canon law that I have always considered both
tantalizing - which is no small thing for canon law - and dangerous. Which is
to say that I don't have the remotest notion how it got there in the first
place and I doubt that they mean it. At least not for a while yet.
Nevertheless, the really interesting thing about the phrase is that we are
about to test it.
The phrase says that the laity have "a right and even at times a duty to
manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the
good of the church." (Canon 212, 2-3.) But whoever thought they would? And what
do we do with it when they do?
In October, 143 groups of lay Catholics in 27 countries, the
International We Are Church Movement, wrote an open letter to the pope, the
cardinals and the international press describing the kind of pope they would
like to have lead the church in the 21st century (NCR, Oct. 23). They are not
arguing for someone of a specific nationality. They're not looking for a man of
a specific age. They're not asking for a person with a specific kind of
preparation. No, the letter is far more revolutionary than that. These groups
are not asking the cardinals of the church to give us a specific person. On the
contrary. They are asking for a new kind of person, whoever he is, wherever
he's from.
They say they need someone who will listen to all the church, not just
the clergy, not just the curia. But if we got somebody like that we'd have to
be very careful because needs could begin to be more important than custom, and
then what would happen to our being able to use "tradition" as a reason for not
doing the gospel?
They say they want someone with a vision of ministry beyond the present
clerical system. But if we got someone like that, we'd have churches being
opened rather than churches being closed, and we'd forget, maybe, how important
it is to God that we be born male.
They say they want someone who taps the conscience of the entire church
to see what experience teaches us about sin - its nature and gravity. But if we
got someone like that, we might build a Catholic conscience rather than
Catholic fear, and how can you control people if you don't use fear?
They say they want someone who encourages a diversity of opinion and
enables academic freedom for theologians. But if we got someone like that, we
might not find ourselves 400 years behind the moral/scientific development of
the human race the next time. We'd recognize that there are questions in the
Christian community as well as answers, mystery as well as laws, and then we'd
have to admit that there are new questions for which the old answers do not
suffice.
They say they want a reconciler who does not pit one part of the church
against another part of the church and who recognizes that cultural pluralism
is not a threat to faith. But if we got that, we'd have unity as well as a
common ritual, and then who would we excommunicate for admitting who they are
and what they're thinking about in their search for belief?
They want an ecumenist who respects the faith life in the human heart
and knows that God is speaking everywhere to everyone. But if we got that kind
of person at the head of the church, how could we assume that all the others
had to be like us or, worse, that some were more of God than others?
They want a collaborator who shares governance with all the people of
God. But if we got that, we would be giving the church back to the people to
whom it belongs - the laity - which could be very disconcerting to those who
consider it their birthright, their charism, as Jesus says "to tie up heavy
burdens, hard to bear and lay them on the shoulders of others" (Matthew 23:4).
They want a prophet and a lover who can sound the call without crushing
the reluctant, the restive and the recalcitrant. But if we had that, we would
have a leader rather than a lawgiver, and how papal could that possibly be in a
church the pope himself just recently described as "essentially hierarchical"?
And on top of all that, they want someone with a sense of humor who
depends more on the charism of the office than the trappings of the role. Now
that is funny -- because if we had someone like that we'd have a church that
knew the difference between the moral, the immoral and the amoral and lived
with it comfortably. We'd have a church that could return to Zion singing
rather than arguing. We'd have a pope who acted more like Jesus than like
Pilate.
And there's an even greater problem implied in this letter. Not only
does the 1983 Code of Canon Law require the faithful to make known their needs,
but this reflection on the role and nature of the papacy was requested by the
pope himself. So now what do you do with something like this? To maintain the
unilateral style of a restoration papacy, it will have to be ignored. To
fulfill the commands of an authoritarian papacy, it will have to be considered.
See what I mean? Tantalizing -- but dangerous.
The Mahatma Gandhi was once asked, "What is your opinion of Western
Civilisation?" He replied, "I think it would be an excellent idea."
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!