Amateur Megalomania

Catholic Reform

With the death of the Pope, my attention has been drawn to the natural events that flow from the passing of a Person Of Note. While I don’t share the faith of the Late John Paul II, I bear him no ill-will, on the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for his secular accomplishments (some would see them as a natural consequence of his Faith, making no distinction between the work of the Church and the accomplishments of the Papacy in confronting the plight of Eastern Europe – to each his own.) There is little doubt than an important world figure has passed on. Doubt can fairly be cast upon the argument that there has been diminishment until the void is filled with someone comparable. This is no small feat, and the measure of the Papal successor will be taken over a course of years, perhaps decades. Personally, I feel that the detractors of John Paul II are more interested in placing a fine point on the axe of their own grievances than they are in a fair assessment of the man and the world in which he moved.

The discussion naturally turns to the future of the Church, and the inconsistencies begin to fly.

Those that seek to change the Church, the critics, do so for a great many reasons, but I believe they all lack the fundamental honesty in embracing their own motives.

Critics fall into two large groups. Non-Catholic Critics and Catholic Critics. While in many cases they may seek the same thing, the distinction in their faith speaks to each group’s fundamental motivation.

The Non-Catholic Critics split along two general lines: The Secular Critic and the Faithful Critic. The Faithful Critic already believes that the Catholic Church is fundamentally wrong on matters of theology (or they would BE Catholic). So why do they wish to reform the Church? Does a Lutheran wish to blur the distinction between Roman Catholics and themselves? Does a gay Unitarian seek to be a Cardinal in Rome? Critics with vested interest in other faiths might engage in Catholic kibitzing as a means of illustrating their own perceived superior faith, or it might simply be a matter of ‘a man fails to mind his own business when it isn’t worth minding.’

The Secular Critic has a different set of motivations. While they are not always hostile to religious organizations, they tend to be the more vocal of critics. They are upset about the Church’s perspective on birth control, the role of women, the acceptance of homosexuality and so forth. While I can understand the heat generated by these issues, I’m not entirely sure why they feel the need to reform these positions. Most take the tack of fighting against ‘the harm to society’ perpetrated by Catholic teaching. One can argue, with some merit, that family planning in the Third World is in need of a more realistic solution than Church doctrine of abstinence, but the Catholic Church is not a coercive body in physical matters. And while I can understand the indignation of a gay man in the face of Catholic neighbors, Catholic policy is not currently aligned with Islamic thinking, particularly in the ‘bury them to the neck and collapse a stone wall upon them’ method.

It seems to me, in a general sense, that the Secular Critic dislikes being disliked for engaging in activities that are anathema to a church in which they don’t even profess to belong. Why seek a realignment of the Church in this case? Would it not be better to simply ignore the teachings and members of such a Church, provided the Church isn’t collapsing walls on people or burning them at the stake for the use of birth control? A Church is not a country club, and you can’t reasonably expect to change the rules from the outside.

The Catholic Critic is a curious thing. One of two things must be true to the average Catholic.

1). The arbitrators of the Word of God are fallible.

Or

2). The arbitrators of the Word of God are infallible.

If you believe in Number 2, then you really have no recourse to criticize the Church. You must believe fully that the position of the Church is aligned with the intent of God. Some might take the ‘cafeteria’ approach, picking and choosing on matters of fallibility, but how does one make such a distinction with a straight face? Undermining the authority of the Church on one matter or another casts doubt upon the whole of accepted Canon, and the Church becomes a thing of Men rather than a thing of God. A true Catholic of the Second Order expressed above must accept the whole cloth of the Church, therefore criticism is not consistent with faith.

The Catholic Critic that acknowledges fallibility of Church officials has several different paths available to him. One is the path of Luther and others, striking out to form a new meme more suitable to their beliefs. While this is a respectable path (as a heretic can be admired by the dispassionate observer), it isn’t practical for the vast majority of the discontent. But the common discontent Catholic has the option of migrating to an existing faith that is more suitable for their wants. However, does a change of faiths suggest that a Church has a secondary function in the practice of faith, serving more as an association of people rather than a conduit to God? Does the specific flavor of Christianity matter, or are all manmade interpretations of God’s word suspect and perhaps unneeded? The migratory Christian raises some interesting questions about the relation of Man and God through a formal organization.

Finally, the entrenched Catholic Critic who doubts the legitimacy of Church leadership has a right to remain a Catholic and seek reform from within. However, I personally question the extent of such reform. On matters of Doctrine clearly stated in acceptable Canonical sources, how can one seek to alter Church policy? At what point does Catholic reformation become Catholic transmutation to something else? Where the Word of God is unambiguous, any attempt at change suggests that God’s Will can be mutated to meet the needs of the age. This hardly seems acceptable.

In matters of ambiguity, the issue of reform is quite legitimate. But I wonder how many tenants of Catholicism are truly ambiguous? I am not Catholic in the slightest, so my education here is lacking. My point is merely this – the realm of ambiguous Church principles is probably much more limited than the scope of debate suggests. Those that wish to debate beyond these bounds are probably more at home in a different Church. The Church is not a social club open to bylaw modification. To assume so is to diminish the power of membership.

It would seem that all classes of Critic could use a bit more honesty about what it is they seek, and why.