With the death of Pope John Paul II has come a lot of “Catholic on the Street” interviews. This LA Times piece is typical of what happens when the media talks to the average Catholic. It has it all: women priests, laypeople giving homilies, an “active parishoner and spiritual director” who says she’d think about becoming a priest if it was allowed. Listening to some of them makes you wonder where Pope John Paul II kept his iron fist… if he didn’t change things, he must have been a tyrant. Why didn’t he just wave his wand, said the incantation, and made everything the way some of these people want to be?
The answer is no.
Why no? Here’s a quick lesson, one that opened up a vast array of understanding and appreciation when I was a muddled teen-age Catholic.
In the Church, there’s a huge difference between doctrine and discipline.
Doctrines include teaching on the Eucharist, the Trinity, that Jesus was fully God and fully Human. Doctrines are not reversible or negotiable. Doctrines were given to the Church by God through the Holy Scripture and the Apostles. The only thing that can happen to doctrine is that our specific understanding of some of the details can be heightened over time. We can have a better understanding of existing doctrine, but we can’t reverse or modify the essence of existing doctrine.
Church discipline is entirely different. The operational rules of the Church, like whether or not a parish can have altar girls, or how often a priest should say Mass, or when a person should abstain from meat – these are disciplines. These change from time to time based on culture or local circumstances. Discipline is informed by doctrine, but it really amounts to how the Church works and how it’s governed. Doctrine is considered to be enduring Truth – that’s right – Truth with a capital T.
And the confusion over doctrine & discipline issue means this:
The people who say “I wish the Church would change X” where X is a doctrine are going to be disappointed forever.
People who say “I wish the Church would change Y” where Y is a discipline have a chance of getting their wish.
What’s hot on the X list?
Women Priests – it’s a point of doctrine that women cannot be priests. It’s not open for discussion, regardless of pastoral need, changing culture or what a leotard-wearing liturgical dancer wants.
Birth Control – same thing. It’s doctrine and is not going to be negotiated, repealed or refabricated.
Church teaching on homosexuality – defintely doctrine. A homosexual orientation (being attracted to the same sex) is not a sin. Homosexual acts are a sin. No amount of protests, letter-writing, or wringing of hands will change that teaching.
What’s hot on the Y list?
Married Priests – while there’s a strong basis for clerical celebacy, there may be a time where married priests in the Latin Rite are permitted. There are some conditions where Roman Catholic priests can be married, and there are a few married priests in the Latin Rite but the rule at this time is for a celibate clergy.
So there it is.
14 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is an unusual time for a Protestant minister to be seriously considering coming home to the Catholic Faith but I am more drawn than ever and hope the immediate future bears out your assertions.
:: petitus domus,
saintos
Saintos,
God bless you in your search for the Truth. As a minister, you know that it is a quest that all Christians and all people are called to their entire lives.
But make sure that you are certain of your reasons for considering “coming home to the Catholic faith”. John Paul II was a great witness to authentic Catholicism and authentic Christianity, but he is not the Church. I pray to God that the attention that his death has drawn to his remarkable life and witness to the Gospel calls all men to examine their faith, but I worry too that their faith will be placed in the messanger and not in the message. Make no mistake: John Paul II is as responsible for forming me as a Catholic as is any person (apart from my parents), but he was the signpost pointing the way to the destination (our Lord and Redeemer).
I mention this because I read an blog entry from Mark Shea that was (as usual) an eloquent summary of this conern:
“There is, of course, the danger that goes with this: ie., the possibility that people will react to John Paul the way a poodle reacts when you point at something: by sniffing the finger instead of looking where it is pointing. I can imagine a number of converts becoming Catholic “for John Paul’s sake” and then being horrified to discover that the next Pope (not to mention the whole church) is not John Paul. That is to build on sand. The *only* reason a person should believe the Catholic faith is because it is true. If John Paul points you to the truth of the Catholic faith, then believe that truth and enter the Church to worship the Trinity in its common life, worship and teaching. But don’t build your life on John Paul. Jesus Christ, not he, is Lord of the Church. And John Paul would be the first one to say that.”
May the Lord bless and keep you in your quest for Him.
John, great post. Since you guys are probably getting more traffic now, also an important post.
Saintos – God be with you as you pray and discern where He is calling you.
Cathy – thanks for the kind words!
I am at a loss for how you could deny the Catholic faith female priests. Following up on the stated documentation offered, it would seem that it is more a matter of tradition than that of “truth.”
What makes you say that Steve?
How are you Peter?
I guess that you and I would have some disagreement over the prudence of changing discipline.
Thank you for this post. I fervently hope some Catholic school teachers read this, because I am getting very tired of explaining this distinction between discipline and doctrine to the very people teaching religion classes in our Catholic schools. And the pope’s death and what comes after are hot duscussion topics in classes all over the Catholic world right now.
If you don’t know the difference between discipline and doctrine, and you’re teaching at a Catholic school, you need to educate yopurself, for your students’ sake.
Saintos — welcome, welcome, a thousand times welcome home! May I direct you to Dr. Scott Hahn’s web site? http://www.scotthahn.com Scott was a Protestant minister who came home to the faith. Another wonderful resource is http://www.catholicanswers.com
I am at a loss for how you could deny the Catholic faith female priests.
I know what you mean. How did we ever manage these last 2000 years without them?
Steve,
Frankly, I have a hard time with it, too. I do not completely understand why the Church doesn’t allow female priests. But you know what? It’s not up to me (fortunately). Not my job. I have not been given the charge by Christ to feed his sheep – he said that to Peter and the other apostles and their successors – the pope and the bishops.
There are a lot of things that I do not understand about the Catholic faith (the Trinity, the Incarnation, Immaculate Conception, for example). Granted, they are not at quite the same level as women’s ordination. But I accept them for the same reason that I accept the impossibility of female ordination – the authority of the teaching Church (the Magisterium). If I don’t accpet that, there’s really little reason to accept the other things.
I’m a Catholic school teacher who loves our Church and I embrace the Church’s teaching on the dignity and vocation of women. I’m in my early 30s and many of my Catholic female friends feel the same way. We don’t just accept the Church’s teaching on the all-male priesthood, we love it.
Mulieres Dignitatem gives such honor to femininity, I feel truly blessed to be a Catholic woman.
I still have so much to learn, and someone posed the following question to me: “Wasn’t it doctrine that the Jews were responsible for killing Christ and the Church did change doctrine during Vatican II by saying that they weren’t?”
Thanks. Mary Beth
Wasn’t it doctrine that the Jews were responsible for killing Christ and the Church did change doctrine during Vatican II by saying that they weren’t?
It has always been doctrine that the Jews, like every other human being who has sinned, were responsible for killing Christ. I am not aware of any change to that doctrine.
It is also an historical fact that He suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Caiaphas was high priest at the time, and that He was brought before Pilate (and Herod) for judgment. The Jewish and Roman authorities that were part of the historical event carried out the effects of what our sins caused. So, I am not sure how you would “apportion” responsibility, even if it could be done. The point is, regardless of your part in it, you had a part in it, and therefore repent, seek His mercy and forgiveness.
I suppose what had been neglected, by church members as opposed to the church’s doctrine, is that the historical involvement in no way diminishes our own responsibility or somehow makes the Jewish (and Roman, for that matter) ancestors’ historical involvement a basis or justification for any ill treatment of them. Vatican II did re-iterate that. In fact, the creed, which is the most compact distillation of doctrine, only states that “He suffered under Pontius Pilate”.
As for women’s ordination, a good way to look at it is like the Eucharist. Christ chose to use bread and wine to effect His real presence before us. You could say that these were cultural accidents. Had He decided to incarnate through the Japanese, it might have been rice cakes and saki. Why the Jewish people, why bread and wine? No one really knows for certain. What is known for certain is that He, Creator of all things and time itself, Who could have chosen any time, place and means, DID choose bread and wine. Likewise, He could have chosen to incarnate in late 20th Century USA as a female, could have done so as a 1st Cent. Jewish female. He could have given the keys to Patricia rather than Peter, etc. He only knows why He chose the way He did. All we know is that He did so choose. That is why JPII stated that the Church has no authority to change it – even if it wanted to – just like it would have no authority to use rice cakes and saki to effect the Eucharist.