Archbishop Niederauer has indicated that Pope Benedict XVI's recent encyclical on love, Deus Caritas Est, will guide his pastoral service of the San Francisco Archdiocese. He has drawn criticism from American Catholic conservatives (more on them in a minute) for his liberal interpretation of the recent Vatican instruction on the admission of gay men to seminaries, refusing to accept the instruction as a blanket ban against gay seminarians and also refusing to place the blame for the sexual abuse scandal on the shoulders of gay priests. Archbishop Niederauer has also acknowledged that he saw Brokeback Mountain, referring to it as "very powerful." Finally, as Bishop of Salt Lake City, Archbishop Niederauer opposed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The conclusion that one comes to is that Archbishop Niederauer may be the most pro-gay archbishop in the United States, if not in the whole world, which means that Pope Benedict XVI seems to have made a good pastoral choice for the Archdiocese of San Francisco.
Of course, as I mentioned, some American Catholic conservatives are quite unhappy with recent developments. Their jubilation over the election of Pope Benedict XVI and his apparent laying the smackdown on GLBT Catholics has subsided, and now Fr. Richard John Neuhaus says that "there is a palpable uneasiness" among those who reacted favorably to Pope Benedict XVI's election. Fr. Neuhaus first cites as a matter of concern Pope Benedict XVI's appointment of former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, primarily because Archbishop Levada did not sufficiently bash GLBT citizens of a city Fr. Neuhaus (probably accurately) refers to as "the gay capital of the world." Fr. Neuhaus then launches into a litany of concerns he has about the appointment of Archbishop Niederauer.
Finally, Fr. Neuhaus concludes as he started, lamenting the possibility that Pope Benedict XVI will allow a "Truce of 2005," in which those who disagree with the strict interpretation of the Vatican's ban on gay seminarians may not be punished -- much like what happened with the "Truce of 1968," when Pope Paul VI refused to punish those who disagreed with Humanae Vitae. Commonweal has responded to Fr. Neuhaus extensively, but I would like to offer my own thoughts.
I believe that Pope Benedict XVI has accepted a "Truce of 2005." And I think he's accepted it because he knows that punishing those who disagree with the recent instruction would mean more than just punishing a few dissenting priests and laypeople. It would mean punishing a number of bishops and religious superiors who have also publicly criticized the instruction, or who have interpreted the instruction in a liberal manner. What is currently a debate about gays in the priesthood could quickly become a debate that Pope Benedict XVI would welcome with less enthusiasm: a debate over papal authority.
Trying to punish bishops and religious superiors for disagreeing with the recent instruction would bring up a number of unsavory topics, left largely unresolved by the Second Vatican Council and certainly left unresolved by the postconciliar teaching authority. For instance, does the pope even have the authority to tell bishops and religious superiors who they can or cannot admit to seminaries and ordain in their dioceses and provinces? This particular question could have implications for ecumenism as well, because other Christians (particularly the Orthodox) would look upon the continued expansion of papal authority over and against episcopal collegiality with great dissatisfaction. Exacerbating the problem would be the unresolved question of the Roman Curia and how it fits into the collegial scheme of things. Are bishops bound to follow even curial documents to the letter? Do they have no authority and discretion of their own? If the answer is no, then the charge that Catholic bishops are no more than the pope's glorified altar boys would seem to be a valid one.
On the same page with the article about Archbishop Niederauer in The Tablet, there is another article discussing how the Orthodox Churches could come to accept the doctrine of papal primacy. Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk, the president of the theological commission of the Russian Orthodox Church's Holy Synod, laid out what he believes would be necessary. Rome would have to recognize the "full plentitude" of local Churches, and "genuine bishops" should not be made subject to papal jurisdiction but instead their "equal dignity" should be recognized. He went on to say:
"The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, the sacrament of sacraments -- wherever it's celebrated by a legitimately consecrated priest, the Church is present and it's possible to live the fullness of the church experience," Metropolitan Filaret continued. "No primacy can be exercised at the expense of this catholic fullness of the local Church. Yet in the Catholic Church, the Pope projects his ecclesiastical power over the whole earth. This complicates relations with Orthodox sister Churches."
If Pope Benedict XVI were to punish bishops and religious superiors who disagree with the recent instruction, he would be confirming the kind of authoritarian primacy that the Orthodox can never accept. But if he does not punish the bishops and religious superiors who disagree with the instruction, then punishment of priests and laypeople who disagree with the instruction would not only be unfair but also meaningless. It seems that Pope Benedict XVI has no choice but to accept a "Truce of 2005" if he intends to keep the Church committed to principles of collegiality and ecumenism as Vatican II demanded. Something tells me that the mandate of the Second Vatican Council, the affirmation of collegiality, and the continued evolution of our ecumenical relationship with the Orthodox will all weigh more heavily on Pope Benedict XVI's mind and heart than punishing bishops, religious superiors, priests, and laypeople who disagree with a low level and ill-advised document.
In other words, long live the "Truce of 2005." The Congregation for Catholic Education's instruction has gone the way of Humanae Vitae, and the Church is better off for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment