It was fairly clear from the preliminary literature leading
up to this synod that elements within the Roman Catholic hierarchy would be pushing
for both married priests and female deacons.
There's a lot of hype and perhaps misinformation surrounding
this. The synod is not calling for the normalisation of these things but rather
in specific reference to the Amazonian hinterland where congregations are
unable to celebrate the mass for long periods of time. Without a priest to
consecrate the host they cannot participate in what is (for Roman Catholics)
the central component of their regular worship.
A lack of men seeking the priesthood that are familiar with
the various indigenous languages and cultures means these congregations are
left hampered and thus a dispensation is being suggested.
Advocates for the position can point to previous and already
existing examples of Anglican ecclesiastical converts and the Byzantine Rite
Catholic Churches. In both cases priests may marry or can enter the priesthood
already married. There might be restrictions on higher episcopal office but
nevertheless there are married priests.
Likewise women in the diaconate will mean that more functions
can be performed in the local congregations. A deacon isn't a priest but can
perform many of the tasks associated with the priesthood.
It's all logical and safe enough. These seem to be pragmatic
moves on the part of the Roman hierarchy to keep the Roman Catholic Church
functioning in areas where it has no episcopal infrastructure as it were. And
yet conservatives are crying foul. Is this irrational? Are they being less than
gracious? Are they focusing too much on the letter of the law as opposed to the
day to day realities that Catholics face?
Given that Catholicism is in a permanent state of flux and
has no immutable authority to appeal to, I find some of the conservative
positions to be ironic, even silly bordering on hysterical. They are committed
to a set of traditions and yet all of them can be located as innovations at
some point in history. At one time the now revered and venerated old practices
and paradigms which are under attack were innovations. Clerical celibacy itself
bears an interesting history and indeed for many centuries clerical marriage
was in fact the norm. Celibacy was revered and yet did not become mandatory
until the High Middle Ages and only after an aggressive campaign. And even
then, there were the loopholes which survived up to modern times.
For Catholic Traditionalists the idea that a priest might
have a 'housekeeper' who is in reality a concubine is less than ideal but preferable
to a formal acknowledgement of clerical marriage. It's sometimes hard for
Protestants and Evangelicals to grasp what seems to be a case of rank hypocrisy
but for Catholics the outward forms aren't just critical... they're everything.
The Evangelical tendency is to downplay or effectively
eliminate outward forms. They are viewed as subjective and more or less
superfluous because what matters is the inward disposition. For Catholics the
inward disposition is secondary. What matters is the outward liturgy, the rites
and rituals, the objective visible realities... not symbols... but realities.
This has to be understood if one is going to follow the debates within
Catholicism and especially the mindset of more Traditionalist camps. This is
why they are so upset about Francis' advocacy of married people taking
communion. It's already happening and is fairly routine but the priest is
'officially' looking the other way. It's not formally sanctioned.
Francis decries this practice as a form of hypocrisy which
undermines the credibility of Catholicism and its episcopacy and in many
respects this way of thinking resonates with Evangelicals. It's in keeping with
the individualised subjective experiential religion which is fairly dominate in
Protestantism.
But for Traditionalist Catholics, such a formal change is an
abomination, a repudiation of centuries of Catholic teaching and would
ultimately undermine Rome's traditions and dogmas concerning marriage and the
family.
Both camps have a point and as one who in some ways 'falls
between' the mentalities.... placing considerable stock in the Spiritual
realities of God ordained forms and yet also wishing to emphasize the inner
workings of the Spirit and the transformed heart... I can (on one level) see
both sides of this issue. I am of course rather removed from the whole debate
as I don't believe Roman Catholicism to be a viable expression of Christianity
and while a great deal of Traditionalist rhetoric is interesting to me and I
often follow their discussions, I nevertheless consider their positions and
even foundations to be little more than sand and wholly untenable.
Likewise I have no regard for the liberalising compromised
sectors within Roman Catholicism. They are simply adding a layer of infidelity
and worldly compromise atop an already cancerous pseudo-Christian foundation.
I am interested primarily becomes of Rome's place in history
and geopolitics and because the organisation has long fascinated me. And all
the more as I've watched the Evangelical rapprochement with Rome and as
Evangelical culture has degenerated and in other senses pushed the philosophical
and cultural envelopes... exposing internal contradictions and generating
intellectual crises and as a consequence leading more and more Evangelicals
into the arms of Rome. I'm not surprised.
But even those who remain Evangelical are increasingly
affected by what's happening in Rome. There's a great deal of collaboration in
the realm of politics, think tanks and activism. This is also a reason to watch
and observe.
The Traditionalists are concerned that the Amazonian Synod
will open the door to more 'special circumstances' in which women will be
brought into the diaconate... a stepping stone to women priests, and clerical
marriage will be expanded.
Indeed it's not hard to imagine an argument being made for
these 'special cases' in Europe or America where there are parishes that are
stretched to the limit, priests holding multiple charges, parishes unable to
celebrate regular mass because the priest is only able to show up every few
weeks or months.
It's an ongoing debate and many are also alarmed about
Francis' shift toward environmentalism and a blending of Roman Catholic dogma
and piety with that larger global cause. It smacks of pantheism and is being
tied in with his critique of capitalism and his advocacy for indigenous peoples
and the poor. This too is complicated. Some of the anti-Francis rhetoric
borders on the hysterical. He's certainly not a Marxist despite what some would
suggest. People change but his record indicates he was no friend to Liberation
Theology during the Cold War era and his episcopal charges in Argentina.
A shift in Catholic Social Teaching is in the wind and while
many Traditionalists have in reality moved away from CST and have embraced
forms of Anti-Liberalism and the rejection of post-Enlightenment social norms,
most seem to have retained one central plank of the Classic Liberal platform...
market based economics.
It's ironic and confusing. On the hand Francis and the
liberal Catholic hierarchy are in the process of transforming Catholic Social
Teaching into a fully 'liberal' direction with regard to democracy and the
like.
But on the other hand the social aspect of their thought
which plays out in environmentalism has a tendency (in line with Catholic
Social Teaching) to reject some of the individualism and individual libertarian
tendencies in Classical Liberalism. Environmental policy doesn't work on the
basis of localism but requires macro-level organisation and planning and thus
on another level the principle of Subsidiarity, so key to CST must be (at least
in part) rejected. And certainly they are increasingly hostile to the
individualistic libertarian ethics of market economics. So in that regard
Francis et al. represent a hybrid of both traditionalist and modern Catholic
social thought.
Likewise the Traditionalist camps have moved in the direction
of rejecting Classical Liberalism's arguments for individual rights. Many want
a curtailment of free speech, restrictions on public discourse, have called for
censorship and the re-established authority of traditional dogmas and forms.
They are anti-Liberal in their sentiments and narratives, many even rejecting
the paradigms of Catholic Social Teaching and wishing to return to a
pre-revolutionary pre-Enlightenment world.
And yet, they are fully 'liberal' when it comes to economics.
Some temper this by the ostensible embrace of Catholic Social Teaching but at
the same time have fully Catholicised Adam Smith and the post-Enlightenment
traditions and paradigms of modern capitalist economics. This in reality is a
rejection of both pre-Enlightenment Traditionalism as well as the
Traditionalism that developed in the formation of 19th century
Catholic Social Teaching.
It's almost as if there's a Hegelian process being worked out
in both camps even as they also interact with each other. It's confusing and
complicated but fascinating.
Do I reject the aims, goals and rhetoric of the Amazonian
Synod? Certainly but I reject the authority of the pope and the Catholic
organisation and all its claims. It's a false church but one that influences
the world and like it or not influences the ever compromised apostatising Evangelical
world. I also reject the latter but I cannot escape its influence and I believe
we are wise to watch its progress even if that course is one of continual
downgrade.
These things are not happening in isolation and they're not
merely the actions of men. The spirit world is at work here and the stage is
being set for what is to come. It's good to take heed.