Scattered Thoughts on the Synod and Ross Douthat

Synod of Bishops

I haven't written much about the Synod of Bishops that just concluded this past Sunday in Rome. I stayed away, in part, because of a lingering Synod fatigue that I haven't fully recovered from after last year's extraordinary session. I just didn't have the mental energy for it. Now that it's over, I've only been able to find the Synod's final document in Italian, with excerpts in English here and there, so I really don't have a full grasp on what the bishops decided.

And in the end, whatever the bishops "decided" is secondary to what will be suggested (or mandated?) in the post synodal exhortation that the pope will likely publish within the next six months to a year. For all the talk of decentralization it will still come down to the Holy Father as to what direction the Church takes on the pastoral care for families of all shapes and sizes.

I do have some thoughts on the debates that have arisen over following the spirit of the law as opposed to adhering strictly to the letter, which I hope to get into later. All I'll say now is that the impression many people have is that to follow the spirit is to throw away the rule book and make it up as you go along. We may keep the general norms in mind, but by and large the spirit frees us to follow our own conscience, which in the contemporary scene seems to be the equivalent of following one's muse. But when Jesus was confronted with a legalistic question concerning divorce and remarriage he didn't offer a solution that was subjective or open-ended. In appealing to the spirit, in this case the way the Father intended them from the beginning, he spoke of the indissolubility of marriage, something none of his listeners, including the Apostles, were expecting or prepared for. In allowing divorce and remarriage Moses was giving in to the hardness of the people's hearts, and Jesus was calling us back to the spirit of God's plan from the beginning. In light of this, many found, and still find the letter much more forgiving than the spirit.

Ross Douthat and the New Pharisees 

I read the October 17 column by New York Times blogger Ross Douthat, which has caused no little buzz around the Catholic bloggesphere, only after reading several articles in defense of his right to free speech (more on that a bit later). In the given article, is he hard on Pope Francis? Yes, but not as hard as George Will was lately, and Maureen Dowd and Margery Eagan have been concerning previous popes (Dowd found cause to take a few jabs at the reigning pontiff, referring to him as the perfect 19th century pope: generous of spirit but still hopelessly backward when it comes to women). Yet a laundry list of theologians decided to write a letter to the editors of The Times condemning the post and asserting that Douthat shouldn't be allowed to write on the religion he is a practicing member of because he's not a credentialed theologian.

There are good responses, better than I can put it, from Bishop Barron here and from Rebecca Hamilton here.

What I will add is that there are some theologians who will argue that they possess a form of mangisterium similar to, if not equal to, that held by the pope in union with the bishops of the Church. Needless to say that I think this is nothing more than a bucket load of self aggrandizing horse spit. Theologians are at the service of the Church, and in the final analysis it is the hierarchy who passes judgement on the works of a theologian, not the other way around. I understand that, in my case, I may be a baptized Catholic, ordained to the priesthood, sent forth to preach and teach, as well as minister the sacraments, but I am not a trained theologian. I need to measure my words, know my limitations and be open when someone wiser and more learned than myself offers a correction, or even a rebuke.

But we must never forget that the Master chose 12 relatively uneducated men and a hand full of unschooled women (or at least whatever level of education they may have had, none were the equivalent of a what a credentialed theologian would have be in their age) to witness in His name. It was not the learned and wise who recognized the coming of the Messiah, but the old window Anna, who I'm pretty sure never stepped foot inside a classroom at Georgetown or South Bend (Lk 2:36-38).  It was the religious intellectual class who tried to shut up the man born blind when he made the right observations, observations they had no response for (Jn 9:24-36). It strikes me a bit ironic that these fine minds have taken the collective role of the Pharisees who saw their own learning as a pedestal that separated them from the lowly, sinful masses.

The one New Testament Apostle who could pass for a professional theologian was Paul. But he constantly referred to himself as a servant of the Gospel, not it's master. Even he, who took second place to no one, went to Jerusalem to have his preaching examined and approved before continuing with his work. What we all need is a bit of humility, and not judge a person's wisdom by the letters after his or her name.

I have a lot of respect for Ross Douthat, even though I don't agree with the tone and much of the content of the article in question. The pope isn't just another bishop, he is Christ's vicar, and Mr. Douthat at the very least came too close to crossing a line into disrespecting Christ's vicar for my taste. As a Catholic he should show more prudence, but as an American citizen he has every right to express his opinion on whatever topic suits his fancy. As a member of the baptized he has as much of a right to weigh in on the issues facing the Church as anyone, for we are all of us made, by that sacrament, into the image of Christ: priest prophet and king. All of us are called to be these three things, especially prophets, whether we have a credential or not.

Consistory of Cardinals Discuses Family and Married Life

The Consistory of Cardinals that met in Rome this week was preparing for October's Extraordinary Synod of Bishops that will concern itself with the Church's pastoral care of married people and families. We can't underestimate the importance of the upcoming meetings, as well as the regularly scheduled Synod set for 2015 which will continue the discussion. Synods are held normally every three or four years, but these extraordinary synods, called by the pope when he feels that they're necessary, are not all that uncommon.

What is different this time is that Pope Francis plans on using the synod as a catalyst for possible changes, not in doctrine, but in pastoral practice. A complaint by some over the years is that both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI used these more as information sessions, with information going from the top down, more than as opportunities for the bishops to collaborate with the pope. Whether these criticisms are fair or not, Pope Francis wants to change the perception, at the very least.

And he's beginning with a hot button topic; how the Church cares for divorced and remarried Catholics who didn't have the first union annulled, or are first time married, but in civil unions. Right now Catholics who find themselves in these situations are not supposed to receive the sacraments, particularly Communion and Reconciliation (Confession).

There are two basic points of view and both, as far as I can see, have their merits. The first is that Jesus is very clear, from Matthew 19, that marriage is an indissoluble bond. There are only two ways a person can walk away from a marriage. The first is to prove that some conditions existed at the time the partners exchanged vows that renders the sacrament invalid, thus null and void in the eyes of the Church. Or else, by way of what we call the Pauline Privilege, when two non-Christians marry and one converts to Christianity while the other opposes and puts serious obstacles in the way of the believing partner's practice of the faith. This is based on 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. While it's a sad situation, and we encourage these people to stay close to the community, in light of justice they are living in a persistently sinful condition which renders a turning away from the offending behavior nearly impossible, and so receiving the sacraments itself becomes an occasion of sin.

The other point of view is that Christ was merciful, and the Church's pastoral response needs to reflect mercy more than strict justice. The annulment process is long and arduous, and many give up or don't even begin when they see all that is involved. What do we do with people who may have been married briefly early in life but have been with their second spouse happily for decades? Surly this alone could be seen as a sign that the first union was invalid, even if it's difficult to prove juridically?  The Eastern Orthodox churches, who also see marriage as a sacrament, allow second, and even third marriages, though the ceremonies are rather penitential in nature, as opposed to the joyously ornate ceremonies surrounding a first wedding. Some say that judging the validity of the first marriage should be made by the individual conscience, others that some juridical process, albeit streamlined, would still need to be maintained. Both agree that a mistake made early in life shouldn't translate into decades of separation from the sacraments, which then could only be received when death is imminent. 

I must be honest, I struggle with this. Some on both sides see things in very cut and dry terms, but not me. Jesus is clear about divorce and remarriage being an occasion for adultery.  He was also merciful with sinners, especially those who were "victims of human passion," as Don Bosco called those who committed sexual sins. I do know that something has to be done. There are too many good, sincere people caught having to chose between their marriage and following their faith. These are people I meet almost everyday. So, I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens the bishops as they gather and discuss, and the Pope as he makes his decisions, that we reach the right balance between justice and mercy in our pastoral practice.