From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: Changing a Church
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:04:59 GMT


In some previous articles, Kerry Stephenson discussed motivations and validity
of people wanting to change their church's practices.  I replied, and my
efforts to be terse and avoid long articles have worked out badly.  In this
article, I will attempt to be extremely clear, though it's going to be a bit
long.

Originally, Ms Stephenson wrote this:

> IMHO, if one wishes to change the Catholic church [...] one is really trying
> to make the Catholic church into something else more pleasing to the
> individual. 

I replied that this was unjustified:  somebody may feel that some RC position,
while the best action for a given time & place, is no longer the best action
due to changes in circumstance.  Claiming that any attempt at change is due to
selfishness simply won't do.

Then, Ms Stephenson wrote something about changing fundamentals, and finally
arrived at this:

> I have no objection to the Pope, in his role, reinterpreting that which
> is the Catholic faith[.]  However, the Pope is not considering admitting
> any of the things we have been discussing[...]  They are being suggested
> by congregants, bishops, and cardinals very close to being excommunicated.

Which doesn't change any of what I said.

The point is that we have no evidence that the RCs who have advocated these
changes are trying to change the RCC just so they'll like it better: they may
well be advocating changes because they believe certain non-infallible parts
of RC doctrine are not well suited for the current situation.

In the second place, that the Pope is rejecting the suggestions _now_ does not
mean they will be rejected _forever_.  While I don't think there are any Ex
Cathedra statements on these issues, some of them are probably covered by the
Ordinary Infallibility of the Church, and wouldn't be changed.  But I do not
think that a celibate clergy is covered by Ordinary Infallibility, and as a
result it is not impossible for the Pope to change the RC practice on this
matter.  If he does make such a change, will you claim that he is only trying
to make the church into something more pleasing to himself?

-=-=-

In another article, Marty Helgesen wrote this:

> No informed Catholic would have considered the use of Latin a fundamental
> principle of the Church.

Of _course_ they wouldn't: that was the entire point.  Ms Stephenson (who I
had apparently misunderstood on this aspect of the discussion) seemed to be
dictating to the Vatican what aspects of the RCC are fundamental and what
aren't.  I was trying to illustrate that some things which are uniquely RC
are _not_ fundamentals of the faith.

> Your statement, "For example, married Anglican priest who converted and
> remained a priest in the RCC would stay married because the Vatican does not
> allow the dissolution of marriage except by death," is completely incorrect.
> The Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican orders, so
> an Anglican priest is not a priest in the Catholic sense.  (Some individual
> Anglican clergymen have been validly ordained, but that just complicates the
> matter.)

I consider your final parenthetical comment to be conceding this entire point.
There are now married RC priests who used to be married Anglican priests; ergo
the RCC allows married priests.  I am aware that there are many smaller
details under `remained a priest', such as the dispute over validity of orders
and questions of re-ordaining people; but the entire statement was part of an
aside that really had little to do with the main point of the article.


> Also, it is incorrect to say that the Vatican does not allow the dissolution
> of marriage except by death.  It is not a matter of Church law that can be
> changed by the Church.  The Catholic Church teaches that God has made
> marriage indissoluble.

Here, I will not apologise for my wording.  What you have is a distinction
without a difference: if somebody asks to get a divorce, they aren't allowed
to because the Vatican says so.  That the Vatican claims divine authority does
not change the reality that the Vatican makes the statement.


> Incidentally, I agree with Kerry.  There is a difference between reforming
> and improving a church and transforming it into something completely
> different, and there are people in the Catholic Church (at  least officially
> in the Church) who are trying to radically transform it into something
> completely different.

Maybe, but in whose opinion?  Some of them apparently think that they are not
advocating any fundamental changes; they would deny that they are trying to
"radically transform it into something completely different".

Rome measures time in centuries, so any changes will be a long time coming;
but changes may well come.  Suppose the Vatican decides to change something
that you disagree with: would you then claim that the RCC has been `radically
transformed'?

-=-=-

My whole point is that people do not all agree about what is fundamental, or
what is the best direction a church/denomination should take.  Just because
somebody believes things you don't like is no justification for claiming that
they are motivated solely by self-interest.  Just because you think a
suggested change is `radical' is no justification for claiming that the people
who suggested it want to make the church something completely different.

Claiming that somebody is motivated by self-interest, or is trying to make a
radical change in his denomination, requires an ability to read hearts that
none of us has.  Without some kind of reasonable evidence, these claims are
silly at best, and usually insulting.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU