 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
From A Love that Dares to Question A Bishop
challenges his church
by Bishop John Heaps
Published by Canterbury
Press, 2001. pp. 35-38,
Published on our website with the authors
permission
If the teachings of Jesus are to go out to all nations
and to people of all times without change, this could happen only by and
through his sustaining presence.The doctrine of an infallible Church follows
logically from the commission and command of Jesus to his disciples. Orthodoxy,
however, implies adhering to theological concepts. The teachings of the Church
gives us access to the great, unchanging truths regarding the being of God and
his coming among us as a human being; as a human being, his saving death and
resurrection, his continuing presence in the sacrements and our eternal destiny
with him.
About these essential teachings of the there are not only the official
Church Councils but a living Church— the people of God -loving and
accepting these teachings across the ages. We see reflected here the Church's
own teaching on Christ's abiding, infallible presence: The holy people of God
share in Christ's prophetic office. The entire body of the faithful, anointed
as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest
this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment
in matters of faith when, from the bishops down to the last of the lay
faithful, they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals"
(Lumen Gentium, para. 12). ("Down to the last of the lay faithful" is an
unfortunate expression.)
Throughout the ages this astounding unity of faith has
held the Church together as a worshipping community bound by a common faith. It
is in matters of everyday life and everyday relationships that difficulties
arise. In this area we seem to have lapsed from a united voice into two voices,
one called "official teaching" or "the rnagisterium", and the other described
as "dissenting voices". We all have a dissenting voice within us which calls us
to having things our own way. It calls us away from Christian generosity and
love, to selfishness and sin. I am not referring to this self-centredness but
to the voice within that cannot sing in unison or in harmony with a voice that
speaks from a position of authority and is neither understood by the head nor
accepted by the heart. I have referred previously to a voice that spoke from
authority and used the persuasive power of fear. In many cases, people seemed
to respond, not from love, not from reason, but from fear. The fear has gone
and so have they.
There is not only the fear which the Church has in the past tried to
instil to control dissent. There is also the fear seemingly present in Rome now
which cannot listen openly to challenge, criticism or opposing views of loyal
and devoted members of the Church. It seems that this closed fearful mentality
is also a factor contributing to frustration and the rejection of the Church by
many as being irrelevant and out of touch.
There seems to be no attempt at all to tap the wisdom,
knowledge and holiness of the whole body of Christ in a search for orthodoxy to
teaching and clarity in communication in regard to human living and relating.
It is no wonder that the faithful walk away and that the young mostly find no
satisfaction or answer to life in a Church which seems again to have closed its
doors and windows to the world. In general, where is there any message of joy
or hope or even support for the adolescent struggling with changing
relationships, facing the workplace, experiencing sexuality, accepting some
responsibility in society
There is a fear seemingly present in Rome now which cannot listen
openly to challenge, criticism opposing views loyal and devoted members of the
Church.
If we could trust the so called ordinary magisterium of the Church, we
would have more confidence in following it without the necessity of an order to
obey. This ordinary rnagisterium, however, does not possess a great record for
reliability into matters of natural or human science. Its teachings on marriage
and sexual ethics have been abysmal. Any pastoral priest will know from
experience the misery inflicted on people through commonly accepted teachings,
now no longer held. The physical interpretation of the functions and purpose of
God-given nature is, and was, a force for misery and destruction of the human
spirit that needs healing and redeeming. Even today we could ask in relation to
this body-centred moral theology, what is more important to take seriously: the
coming into being of a new human life, or the physical means by which we
prevent this life? What is more important in the physical and sexual expression
of love: its depth of reality, or the time of the month in which it is most
unlikely to conceive a child? What is more important: love and spirit, or
caution and physical methods?
Our moral decisions should concentrate on the existence
of life and on its quality.
A moral theology whose basis is mere physical function
means very little and achieves very little in a world already so directed
towards materialism. We are the very people who believe in an immortal soul,
but seem to be so obsessed with bodily functions. How can we have a more
spiritual Church, a Church which on every level is doing the things Jesus was
sent to do? Let us look at each of those reasons for which he was sent and try
to respond.
Support our
work?
Go to next chapter of this
book?
HOME
Page?
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!