We have a new pope.
I wouldn't have chosen Ratzinger, but what do I know? He had the office of Chief Inquisitor, although they don't call it that anymore. It is he who stomped out Liberation Theology in Latin America (a good thing?). It is he who prohibited priests from running for public office (a good thing?). He has been behind the purging of liberal Catholic universities and seminaries (a good thing?).
In short, there will be no "development" of the sort American and European Catholics want. I did a Google on former Benedicts to try to find out what agenda might hide in this name. I came across Benedict XIV, who was a hard liner on giving in to cultural trends and lost many converts to Catholicism in the seventeen hundreds. Is this why Ratzinger took the name--because he plans on "taking a stand for absolute truth."
I just hope he does not make any "infallible" statements on issues still open for debate. As you might expect, I have serious questions about the idea of papal infallibility. I have problems when one person can encase traditions in stone that cannot change.
Acceptance of the theoretical possibility of change is inherent in Christian tradition. I can't listen to the words of the Bible and not conclude massive theological developments between the Old and New Testaments. The afterlife would be a major case in point since the OT has very little about it and some of what there is in the OT is against it (e.g., Job 14:13-22). We need to put most our faith in the NT if we are to believe in a resurrection (although there is Daniel 12:2-3).
And what of the Trinity or dual nature of Christ? You could argue that Arius had as much biblical support for his position as Athanasius did. The church had to turn to philosophical categories it seems to hammer out these issues because the biblical language by itself did not settle the matter.
But are papal infallibility, purgatory, or the immaculate conception appropriate developments? I'm not sure that they contradict the biblical text as much as we sometimes act like they do, although clearly the Bible doesn't teach any of these things. LaHaye's interpretation of Revelation involves more "addition" to the Biblical text than a purgatory would, I think. But I don't accept these. I especially have questions about a solitary human authority over the church, although I understand he shares this power when he is not speaking ex cathedra.
I end with an affirmation of prophecy. While the primary role of an IWU is to prepare individuals for ministry, I believe another important role for a Christian religion department is to help the church think and reflect on itself. As Hesburgh, former president of Notre Dame put it, "This is where the church does its thinking."
I submit to the Christian communities to which I belong, authorities over me. I submit to the Wesleyan Church, and I submit to IWU. But I think communities like these need constructive criticism as well, even if they reject it in the end. When they reject it, it is my duty to submit to their rejections. But I think that it is healthy for a Wesleyan Church to have universities that reflect and critique it for the purpose of edification and growth. I do not mean of the cynical and destructive kind--that is unhealthy although far too common.
But I don't believe any earthly community of faith has it all figured out, and I think it is always healthy to have prophets among us who think they have corrective or steering words from God for our communities. A Christian university in a faith community seems a great place for prophets (and again, not cynics or skeptics).
I don't think the Roman church has as much room for prophets as it should. My greatest fear about Benedict XVI is that he will put the nail in the coffin on some issue that currently remains unresolved. I have a fear he will make some infallible statement on celibacy or birth control. Currently there is none, so these practices could currently be broadened even in the Catholic church.
But I fear a man who may want to make a point for God that God really doesn't want him to make. I doesn't matter whether birth control might help slow AIDS in Africa or if most American and European Catholics ignore Catholic teaching on birth control anyway. I fear a human with such overwhelming authority, yet who might in some instance have "a zeal without knowledge."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with you, papal infallibility bothers me- though I can see why it doesn't bother some Catholics, trusting that God will lead the Church into all truth... through the seat of St. Peter. My question though is, as protestants, how does "submission" work out in terms of Church authority. I believe it's neccesary and important, but so much of protestantism is based on individualism and soul autonomy; individualism seems to me to be a product of the fall, but how do we get around it?
I suppose we could get theological and speak of submission to the invisible church, the church everywhere in all times. Even here I want there to be a prophetic possibility. But for the moment, I'll have to start with IWU and the Wesleyan Church :>)
Yeah, I get that, I guess what I mean is- even with the Wesleyan denomination (though to a lesser extent), all denominations are based on this individualism which says "I know what God is saying, and if you don't like it then I'll start my own Church." I'm just wondering how any denomination which has been born through a break with everything which has come before it then turn around and establish itself as an authoritative community.
I guess I don't expect the Wesleyan Church to consider its doctrine quite so absolutely authoritative as, say, the Apostle's or Nicene Creed. But of course you're right, many Protestant communities take themselves as absolute receptacles of the truth.
I guess I would consider the authority of a community in an "absolute" sense to be in proportion to its correspondance to the faith of the ages, the faith "catholic." By the way, I consider this touchstone to apply to the Roman Catholic church as well :>) In other words, the authority of the Roman Catholic Church depends on its correspondance to the true catholic faith rather than its own understanding of the faith catholic.
On the other hand, I believe that communities can be prophetic on various issues, in which their authority is tentative in relation to the catholic faith, but potentially absolute in relation to what the catholic faith might become. I consider those faith communities that affirm the full potential of women to any role in the church to be part of such a prophetic movement. I believe this will be the eventual position of the church catholic.
But what I mean when I speak of being in submission to the communities of faith to which I belong will often be something much less than either of these in terms of its relation to absolute faith. It is about my submission to those in authority over me. Whether it proves also to be submission to the church catholic will often be highly debatable in any absolute or even prophetic sense.
So there are times when we can't be or shouldn't be submissive to our church's authority [meaning the authority of our particular local church and its respective denomination? or do you just mean the church-at-large?
Post a Comment