A scholarly monk by the name of John Gratian taught at the
University of Bologna in the twelfth century. He is rightly acknowledged as the father of
scientific canon law and his monumental work, commonly called Decretum Gratiani
(Gratian’s Decree), formed the first part of what became the Corpus Iuris Canonici.
The Corpus was the foundation of Church law until Pope Benedict XV promulgated the
first Code of Canon Law in 1917.
The first part of Gratian’s Decree
was called Concordia Discordantium Canonum, or The Harmony of Discordant Canons. In
case you were wondering why I was talking about a twelfth century canonist, I invoke the
memory of Gratian as a master of harmonizing the discordant. Today, with dissension and
conflicting voices permeating almost every aspect of the Church’s life, we
desperately need his talents. However, if Gratian were to come back to address the present
crisis, he would no doubt need the Blessed Mother, St. Joseph and twelve legions of angels
to help!
On March 18, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los
Angeles made his contribution to a solution in "Who speaks for the Church," an
address given in Rome to the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council on Social
Communications. His Eminence’s address can, I think, provide us with some insights
into recent events. The full text appears in the April 2, 1998 issue of Origins and
is too long to reprint here. The following excerpts will give you some idea of what the
whole thing says.
"The question, Who speaks for the
church? Is a very complex one, given the circumstances we face in our day. While it is
true that bishops speak for the church together in council or as heads of local
diocese, it is also true that there are indeed many other voices speaking in the
church today.
"At times it may seem that the
cultivation of diverse charisms in service of the body of Christ has given rise to
cacophony rather than to fuller harmony in faith, hope and charity! But there is no
extinguishing the Spirit (1 Thes. 5:12-25). If we are to be continually attentive to the
presence and action of the Spirit, we must be willing to turn an ear to these many voices
in the church. But today, as in every age, we must be judicious in discernment.
"Some of the voices speaking in the
church are clearly from the church and for the good of the church—sound and
Spirit-guided theologians in service of Christ and his church, contemporary martyrs and
holy women and men who speak through personal witness to the cross of Christ, prophetic
voices that challenge us to go where we sometimes would rather not go in our journey
toward the fullness of the kingdom of God.
"At the same time we must recognize
that some of the voices claiming to be Catholic and which give the impression of speaking
for the church are, in fact, not so. Who decides?". . .
"The question is even more complex
due to the fact that in this time of information revolution, i.e., the electronic age,
there are many who have the means to shape public opinion on matters of Catholic faith and
life but lack the competence to do so. In the life of the church there are many who have
access to highly effective means of communication and give the appearance of speaking for
the church. They may do this by including the word Catholic in the name of their
organization or their Web site or by advertising their unwavering obedience to the Holy
Father and the magisterium or by creating a ‘Catholic’ mood or environment in
their programming.
"We live in an age of images, images
that convey great power. Images sometimes speak louder than words. Many of our Catholic
people and others as well often assume that a Catholic who has access to public media is
ipso facto competent to speak on all matters Catholic. This impression is communicated by
persons and groups representing a wide range of Catholic perspectives (from the extreme
left to the far right).
"In some instances, those who have
access to the public media but have little or no competence in Catholic theology or church
doctrine assault the legitimate authority of the church. The content of their message is
often inaccurate and/or misleading, and the manner in which it is delivered is marred by
rage, rancor and personal attack. It is a great irony that much of this is thought to be
in service of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, the ‘true’ Church.
"There have always been differing voices in the
church. The open exchange of ideas, commitment to dialogue and freedom of expression
characteristic of our age are gains to be celebrated even in the face of some notable
abuses. But if those gains are to be brought to serve the task of being and building the
body of Christ, the church, then they must be cultivated and used responsibly and wisely.
I would like to suggest then that the crucial question beneath Who speaks for the church?
in our day is, How do we speak in the church?". . .
"I would like to
suggest that one of the greatest needs of the church today is for the establishment of
structures to help our lay faithful in the gift and task of discernment, what might be
called communal discernment, so that they might be far more discriminating in
determining what passes for Catholic. While I do believe that there is a need for local
bishops’ conferences to regulate the use of the term Catholic in various
media, such steps need to be taken in tandem with those by which we begin a more concerted
effort to educate and continually form contemporary Catholics in the church’s
traditions of discernment of spirits.
"The discerning Catholic would be
able to recognize the person who speaks for the church by how that one speaks. Are the
gifts, fruits, harvest of the Spirit present in the message and in the medium? Or is the
message one of fear and divisiveness delivered with rancor and arrogance even while
appealing to the virtues of humility and obedience? The discerning Catholic heart would
also recognize that access to public media is no guarantee of competence in matters of
Catholic theology or church doctrine. . . ."
Cardinal Mahony is surely right when he
says there is cacophony rather than harmony in the Church. Aside from that, I have to say
that his speech reads a bit like his pastoral letter on the liturgy, Gather Faithfully
Together. That is, it is not easy to see exactly what the Cardinal is trying to say.
Also, in his speech he gives no examples or more precise definitions to support his
generalizations. For example, I don’t know who those "sound and Spirit-guided
theologians" are, although I am inclined to presume that Cardinal Mahony has in mind
those theologians whose views most closely coincide with his own. I also wonder who His
Eminence is referring to when he mentions those whose delivery is "marred by rage,
rancor and personal attack." He might include in this group Fr. Charles Irvin, whose
ill-tempered screed in "Straws in the Wind" on page 6 would certainly fit the
description. For some reason, though, I don’t think so.
Just in case anyone who read the text of
Cardinal Mahony’s address in Origins had any lingering doubts concerning the
identity of his target, Catholic News Service provided this helpful clarification in an
explanatory sidebar.
Neither [U.S.A. Archbishop John] Foley
[President of the Council] nor Mahony mentioned specific examples of media or media
personalities. However, Catholic News Service reported that discussion among council
members included mention of the controversial Radio Maryja, run by a priest in Poland, and
the Eternal Word Television Network in the United States, run by Mother Angelica.
One has to ask, then, whether Cardinal
Mahony is seeking a possible solution to a terribly complex and vexing issue, or is this
just another salvo in his campaign to circumscribe Mother Angelica? Whatever the answer
may be, the key question should be: "Who is perceived as speaking for the
Church in matters of faith and morals and are the voices of most of these perceived
spokesmen speaking with the Church?"
We know that diocesan bishops have the
power to speak for their particular churches and the Pope has the same for the universal
Church. Also, they can do this in a variety of ways and often delegate others to speak for
them. However and through whom they speak, the faithful can recognize without too much
difficulty that it is their local church or the universal Church that is speaking to them.
But determining the degree of assent they should give to a doctrinal statement, the level
of obedience owed to a disciplinary norm or the weight to be given to the bewildering
array of Church documents being issued today is another matter.
Until the present internal crisis in the
Church erupted in the 1960’s, most lay Catholics attributed to all clergy and
religious, especially their pastor and the staff of the parish school, the competence to
speak for their Church. After all, it is within the context of parish life that they hear
the word of God, receive the sacraments, transmit the faith to their children, obtain
consolation in times of sorrow and otherwise participate in the activities of the
community of Christ’s faithful. In other words what "father said" or
"sister said" might as well have been the voice of the pope. Similar assent was
given to parish bulletins, diocesan newspapers, books (always with an imprimatur)
from Catholic publishing houses and whatever was in the pamphlet rack in the vestibule of
the parish church. The trust Catholics placed in these sources was, with very rare
exceptions, justified.
To illustrate what the situation is today,
I have completed a most unscientific but nonetheless interesting study. What I did was to
review the 14 issues of CHRISTIFIDELIS published in 1996, 1997 and 1998, including this
one. There were 85 "Straws," of which 57 (67%) came from sources over which a
parish, diocese, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Holy See exercised (or
should have exercised) control. It came as no surprise to me that 47 of these (82%)
contained statements or opinions that attacked, undermined, held up to ridicule or
otherwise called into question Church teaching or discipline on such matters as
contraception, priestly celibacy, the ordination of women and observance of canon law.
Only 6 (10%) in my estimation spoke with the Church. The remaining 4 were reports of
events and contained no opinions. Is it any wonder that surveys show that the behavior of
Catholics with regard to divorce, contraception and abortion in the United States does not
differ from that of non-Catholics; or that most Catholics were ignorant of the teaching of
the Church concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
The "Straws" in this issue are
typical of those that appeared in the previous thirteen issues. We see here: (1) A
diocesan Director of Religious Education writing in a diocesan newspaper and, in effect,
saying that everything the Church did over the centuries to pass on the faith to each new
generation was wrong; (2) A pastor with a "Q & A" column in a diocesan paper
bending over backwards to avoid dealing with the real issues behind a question; (3) a
diocesan priest, writing in a diocesan newspaper, making a savage attack on those who are
guilty only of trying to uphold Church teachings; (4) The Prefect of the Congregation for
Christian Education rightly criticizing "Catholic" colleges and universities in
the United States for their failure to comply with lawful norms; (5) The Archbishop of
Milwaukee systematically misrepresenting the views of orthodox Catholics, praising
dissenters like Call to Action with faint damns and holding up as a good example those
Catholics who don’t seem to believe in or care about much of anything.
My conclusion is that Cardinal
Mahony’s address, like his pastoral on the liturgy, will be of no help in solving the
real problems that torment our Church. Moreover, his words are likely to cause harm by
encouraging those who support the agenda of the dissenters and want to silence faithful
Catholics’ voices to increase their efforts.
