First of all, there is no controversy. An American Catholic Nun (very well educated in theology, btw), wrote a book about sexuality that contradicted Catholic teachings. Obviously, this is a problem. That should come to no-one as a surprise. However, despite being decidedly uncontroversial, it is a matter of note. Disagreements within large organizations always are, regardless of their nature. So, it should come as no surprise to Catholics that the news outlets are reporting it, and that folks of all statures and means are giving their opinions about it.
In other words, there's not much to dispute, but we're talking about it anyway. That's pretty common in American news media.
I've heard John express a sentiment of annoyance with the media in general over how this is playing out in the papers and online outlets. The criticism is generally centered around how the Church hierarchy is beating up the poor nuns, and how free thought is being suppressed by "overlords" of the clergy.
My response to that is: Well, yes. That is indeed what's going on. Nuns in general aren't being attacked, but a particular set of individuals (and one individual in particular) are having their opinions and teachings (one could say false teachings) suppressed.
That's all perfectly legal and permitted of course. The Catholic Church in the U.S. is a private organization. They have their own rules, and can remove anyone from they wish from the roster, for whatever reason. That means, as long as you want to attend mass, you do so under their rules. No ones rights are violated by that, since individuals are free to leave the organization at any time. People should understand that. I hope they do.
But even if people understand that, they still find this business justifiably disgusting. The mainstream is moving farther away from some Catholic mores - particularly the emphasis on obedience. Mainstream observers find the notion that distant authorities can flex their muscles on a small strand of unorthodoxy to be crude, medieval and somewhat cowardly. Perhaps it's the Protestant influence, but I don't know.
This is what happens when cultures fall out of the mainstream, and choose to entrench instead of adapt. The minority stands still while the majority moves on. As the image gets smaller in the rear view, it becomes harder for either group to understand or sympathize with the other. In this case, the majority is finding disgust with some aspects of Catholicism (particularly the protocols of the Vatican), while the Catholic sub-culture can't understand why everyone is turning on them. They feel under siege.
Strictly speaking, neither culture is wrong or right.
It's not the apocalypse, and it's not a conspiracy, it's just.. a natural consequence. Popular values have changed. Independence of thought is more important than obedience to authority. Patience and "open-mindedness" is more important than maintaining orthodoxy. That all sounds very self indulgent and self congratulatory. I didn't mean it that way. But my point it, some of the values which the Church operates under, no longer reflect commonly accepted values in American culture. The Church and it's adherents have a right to hunker down and resist the change, but they should get used to the feeling of being misunderstood. Fringe elements are, after all, commonly misunderstood.
I probably shouldn't have mentioned the nun with the book in my blog, as that story and the LCWR story are two separate things.
ReplyDeleteThe lady who wrote the book, that's standard fare, lone wolf stuff. The LCWR, that's more systemic.
Nevertheless, you are entitled to your views on this matter, but I dispute the implied notion that Catholics are fighting a lost cause. We're down, not out.
Moreover, there are 1 billion of us worldwide. According to wikipedia, with more than 68.5 million registered members, it is the largest single religious denomination in the United States.
That same article to be fair says 26 million are non-practicing in 2011.
That leaves 42.5 million of us (more than 15 percent of US pop) who believe at least the bulk of these "fringe" ideas. Is that a minority? Sure, but it is a very, very significant one that isn't going away anytime soon.
I don't know why the Church pushing it's agenda has to be portrayed as crybabies while the pro-choice or homosexual marriage movements push theirs to great applause.
When you look at the numbers it's not a great wide dispute. Almost as many people are prolife and prochoice. Almost as many oppose gay marriage as support it.
But for some reason the prolifers and supporters of traditional marriage are consistently portrayed as the bad guys, as old fogeys fighting a battle they are destined to lose.
I don't know why that is. I don't presume a conspiracy or anything.
People have been calling the Church old and irrelevant since Henry VIII at least, 500 years ago. But we persist.
I reject that notion that we are doomed. And I suppose only time will tell which of us is right.
I'll leave that comment up, but let me say that I didn't mean to respond as though you'd determined this a lost fight not worth fighting. You didn't say that, and you rather just pointed out what IS happening.
ReplyDeleteRighty-o, man. Righty-o.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to explicitly make predictions, because really I don't know. I feel like things will continue trending this way, and since I'm on the side that's gaining ground, I certainly hope that continues. But I really don't know what the next 10 years will bring.
I used the word "fringe" and I kind of wish I hadn't. Hardcore Catholics are indeed a minority, but they aren't fringe. I was kind of making a point that the further away one gets from the cultural momentum of the mainstream, the less sympathy one will receive from the mainstream. The mainstream is moving in fits and starts, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, away from some Catholic teachings. Since the Church is morally bound NOT to budge, unless our culture makes a dramatic turn, things will get worse for their PR. They'll be seen as more fringy, but not necessarily fringe like scientology or WBC.
If one discounts opinion pieces, which are free to be as biased toward one view as they please, I don't think the news media have portrayed the Church as being "crybabies". The only bias is a selection bias. The media choose to report on stories of the Vatican censuring dissenters. They choose to see that as "news". Which it is. People who aren't used to, or approve of such censure DO see it as significant. It might be humdrum to you, but not to us.
Unless the news is distorting the facts of the matter, there's no justifiable grievance here. It's true that pro-choice/pro-life and gay marriage matters are still pretty evenly matched. But it's not just about those matters. It's about the notion that Catholicism views masturbation as a "grave disorder". It's about the notion that dissenters within the church can either toe the line or face excommunication, despite the myriad of charitable works they may do.
Many of us look at those examples as absurd and disgusting. The Church has a right to be absurd and disgusting (within the bounds of law), of course. This is a free country. But it's enough to have the liberty. To have the liberty, and also demand good press is asking too much. Culture is in the early stages of leaving you behind. You're gonna have to get comfortable with that.
Thank you for conceding the fringe classification.
ReplyDeleteAs for the media coverage, that's new? Really? You mean the last 1,000 years at least of the Church always and consistently busting the balls of dissenters is now suddenly news all the time? And now, instead of "Church looks to curb dissenters" a possibly bad sounding but fair headline, it's "Church attacks this" or "cracks down that." There is a bias here in that portrayal, and sure part of that is our culture sensationalizes everything these days, but the bigger thing is...
I wrote "I don't know why the Church pushing it's agenda has to be portrayed as crybabies while the pro-choice or homosexual marriage movements push theirs to great applause."
Your answer to that didn't really satisfy me.
You just say it's not about those matters... and true that's not all of it, but those issues are part of it. Take a look at the stories written on those topics on the main news sites... positive connotations for your side, negative for mine, consistently. And these are contested issues but the media portrayal seems to indicate the fight for public opinion is over and the good guys won.
As for the Church's moral stances and line on obedience, how in the HELL can that possibly be news? It hasn't changed...they're saying the same things they've always said. At best, someone could write "Church keeps saying things it's been saying for years, people ignore," but instead we're getting whole articles on this stuff.
I don't demand good press. I expect fairly negative press on everything the Church does these days for better or worse. I would like to be able to expect a story on the Church to not start from the position that Catholic=bad, which is the perception I get reading the news.
This isn't universal, but it is prevalent.
If "curb dissenters" is ok and "cracks down" is not ok - you're being too sensitive. An article over that priest who wrote an open letter to the vatican was described as "attacking" or "hitting back", also. Is that bad press?
ReplyDeleteIt's news because people talk about it, John. Stories that revolve around moral condemnation and demanding obedience etc - are interesting. People want to read about it so they can sound off their opinions.
To turn this back on you, if this isn't "legitmate news" (whatever that means - another conversation), then why do you think the media is covering it? You frequently deny conspiracy theory motives, but if not to MAKE MONEY by selling page hits and papers, then why do you think they're doing it?
Maybe I am too sensitive. I admit that I am not an impartial judge of this situation, and I struggle greatly to view it objectively. Struggle is too weak a word...I don't view it objectively, but I do try.
ReplyDeleteAs for people talking about it, that's a fair point, but then we get to the chicken and the egg. Are people talking about it because it's being reported or is it getting reported on because people are talking about it?
More importantly, neither of those things matter, but as you not, making money does. People do like to read this stuff, so that does make it news then if that's the standard. The bullshit then isn't on the media, but on the people.
I'm serious here...how is the Church continuing to be exactly the same Church it was yesterday and acting in a manner consistent with that something that surprises or interests people?
Are the same things not happening in other types of Christianity? Or Islam? Or Mormonism? Maybe it is because the Catholic Church has a central voice that is available to be criticized, and it bothers with press releases.
Sigh...reset.
You're right. The media covers what people wanna read. People wanna read this stuff. But I do maintain there is an anti-Catholic tone to most articles on these topics. I believe that happens simply because most non-Catholics generally dislike the Church, but I don't know.
It blows...and I need to get used to it. Touche, and fair point.
"But I do maintain there is an anti-Catholic tone to most articles on these topics. I believe that happens simply because most non-Catholics generally dislike the Church, but I don't know."
ReplyDeleteThat's fair.
I don't know whether most people generally dislike the church, but I do feel there are some aspects of Catholicism that most Americans don't like. The strict hierarchy and execution of Vatican authority, I think. It's played out with the sex-abuse scandals, and discovery of coverups. And it's in play here. That kind of American bias makes sense, because we've got a heavy protestant background. That kind of supreme, monolithic authority is icky to many Americans.
As for Mormons and Muslims, they do make the news - provided it's about something that we don't like about them. We don't like the cultish aspects of Mormonism, and so, polygamous sects make the news from time to time. We disapprove of the brutality of Islam, and so examples of Islamic brutality make the news.
Mormons though, are actively trying to rehabilitate their image. They've disowned and almost completely buried the last vestiges of polygamy. They're trying to suppress some of the cultier aspects of their religion. So they're moving toward the mainstream, slowly. Muslims come in moderate and extermist flavors, so the moderates in the U.S. try to convince the mainstream that they represent the "true" Islam.
Catholicism, on the other hand, is clear about where it stands and what stands for, warts and all. So, apart from clever PR, there's no real shift or change coming. So, in all likelihood, the media will continue to sensationalize these "controversies".
I definately don't like sensational journalism. It frankly sucks that we're consistently served news about subjects that we hate, rather than subjects that we love. I hate the bastardized quest for ratings, and I wish we could track sincere interest in a topic, rather than merely page hits. But, that aside, you can't blame the media for anti-catholic bias. They're just pandering to a base. There's a market, so they sell to it.
A few thoughts. First, I agree with John that reporting on the Catholic Church is often sensationalist, biased, and ignorant. Honestly, I think that's true of reporting on Christianity generally. I love the "New York Times" and "The Washington Post", but their reporting on Christianity is often shallow. And, of course, this is true of the mainstream media generally. I think that the problem is that many reporters aren't Christians, or that their experience with Christianity is extremely limited. Is that bad? Not necessarily. But if they want to report on Christianity - and, let's face it, Christianity needs to be reported on - then they need to try to overcome their limited perspectives. I imagine that conservative Christian media have a similar problem, though in the opposite direction - they probably have a hard time understanding different forms of conservative Christianity, liberal Christianity, and non-Christian traditions. I think that there may be a problem here that deserves more attention than it has usually received - reporting on subjects like religion may drag in more of the reporter's worldview than many other subjects, but every reporter's worldview is necessarily limited. If so, what should be done about this?
ReplyDeleteAnother thought that I had concerns the diversity of belief within the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic, and though I attend Protestant churches now, I still identify as Catholic. One thing that has always puzzled me is how much one can disagree with the Catholic Church on particular issues. The Church does say that individual Catholics can decide some issues for themselves, but that they have to agree with the Church on others. However, I have never heard a priest - or anyone in the Church - clearly explain which issues are which. Moreover, I have never heard anyone in the Church explain what happens if an individual Catholic doesn't agree with the Church's official position on one of the non-negotiables. Are you considered unfit for the Eucharist? Excommunicated by the Holy Spirit? What? I could probably find this out if I did some research, but I have done some reading in the Catechism, and that didn't help. I expect that the answers are to be found in the Catechism, but I'm not sure that they are easy to find. This is one of my problems with the Catholic Church - at least in my experience, it doesn't make clear what issues are set in stone and which are not, and it doesn't explain its position on what happens when someone disagrees with one of the issues that is set in stone. This should all be clear to every Catholic, but I doubt that many Catholics could answer my questions.
Finally, I have known some good priests who have disagreed with the Church's position on social issues like homosexuality. There are tons of priests who dissent on issues like these. Isn't this a problem? I'm not sure what the Church would say about these priests, but suppose it says that they should be kicked out of the priesthood. Shouldn't the Church do more then to root out the dissenters and kick them out? And isn't it bad that so many priests would remain silent about their disagreement if the Church would indeed want to kick them out? But suppose that the Church wouldn't want to kick them out. It still seems to me that there is a serious problem here, namely that there is a huge disconnect between the teachings of the Church and what many priests profess. Of course, there is also a huge disconnect between what the Church teaches and what many ordinary Catholics believe. And this is true of even major issues, not just minor ones. I think that these kinds of problems are probably inevitable in Catholicism. In Protestantism, you can simply switch churches. Not so for Catholics. I'm not saying one model is better than the other, but there are some problems here. Then again, I suppose that the Protestants have their own problems, which may be worse. Ugh.
Leslie, I agree with much of what you say. It's true that there is a disconnect between what many priest and layity believe and Church teaching. As for Church teachings being hard to figure out, I'm with you there to a point.
ReplyDeleteThe Catechism isn't the world's easiest read or handiest resource, and it doesn't cover everything, but it's got most of it.
What I want to do first is address your questions on diversity in the Church. I'll add my next comments separately.
I think the overarching theme of Church teaching as I have encountered it on this matter is that the goal is never to kick someone out of the Church. Sometimes that will happen when an unrepentant person persists in teaching contrary to the magisterium, but it is never the goal.
The goal is to encourage the person to study and prayer and bring them that way back into assent with the teachings. The Church's goal isn't to kick people out, though the temptation to want to do so is one that affects me from time to time.
When an individual doesn't agree with the Church's official position on one of the non-negotiables at least initially, I don't believe that alone makes them unfit for anything, except probably teaching on the matter publicly.
This bit here, I found this on Catholic.com, is referring to authoritatively taught, but not infallible statements.
"The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be humble enough to accept criticism of one's own views by them). Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ."
The primacy of one's own conscience as affirmed during Vatican II remains, but we must acknowledge that the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from teaching error as official doctrine (not to be confused with say, a leading idea) doesn't apply to us as individuals, and we should remember that if we are Catholic, we acknowledge the authority of the Church.
I don't believe one has to hold alllllll the many beliefs of the Church to be a full in communion Catholic, but I feel as though they should want to.
As to who is still a Catholic:
"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but "in body" not "in heart." (CCC 837)
I wanted to address another thing.
ReplyDeleteI often hear from some that the Church has too many rules, and I hear from others, like yourself here, that perhaps it doesn't have enough, or at least that it isn't clear enough.
I submit a theory, that the reason that everything under the sun isn't written down in the Catechism is because the Church is a living thing.
As such, a "live" teaching authority must exist simultaneously, and that to me is the magisterium. I believe it is God's divine providence that has given us this system, though I blame fallen man for it's current state (i.e. Vatileaks).
Also, Leslie, I'm curious as to your continuing to identify as Catholic.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean that culturally (Church festivals, fish fry Fridays, bingo) or in some other sense? I only ask to better understand.
I feel I would struggle to identify myself as Catholic if I were to break from the Church and so I'm not sure I understand where you come from.