In my column of October 17, I discussed some possible negative reactions to the statement about divorce and conscience penned by seven priests, myself included, and later on endorsed by the Archbishop. I wrote that the whole discussion was a “question about models and visions of and for the Church; but that is an argument for some other Sunday”.
Visions are the dreams we harbour for our future, that of our loved ones and the organisations we partake in. Models are the forms through which we structure our visions. Sometimes a particular organisation is too grand for it to be fully encapsulated in just one vision and one model. The Church is such an organisation.
Different visions and models have existed throughout the centuries and different visions and models exist at the same time. For example, the New Testament refers to it as a vine, a body or a flock. Following the conversion of the Roman emperor and the establishment of the Church as the religion of the empire, other visions and models evolved.
Vatican II did away with the Church as the Perfect Society model, and presented the Church as the People of God model. This does not mean there are not many among us who still operate under the Perfect Society model.
Different models of the Church transform into different theological reflections and pastoral strategies. For example, Fr Timothy Radcliffe, says the Church’s mainstream reaction for decades to the priest paedophile scandal was characteristic of the clerical model, which stresses rank and power.
“Every institution always seeks to preserve and augment its power, but the philosopher Charles Taylor, in A Secular Age, has traced the genesis of “a culture of control” from the 17th century onwards.”
Fr Radcliffe was addressing the priests of Dublin (see the website www.bishop-accountability.org/
news2010/01_02/2010_01_05_Radcliffe_Reflection-.htm). The former Master of the Dominicans says this culture of control tainted the Church as well. It led to a climate of stiff clericalism and authoritarianism.
The recent selection of cardinals by Pope Benedict shows how different models can exist side by side. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC, and Archbishop Raymond Burke, the head of the Apostolic Signatura, are on opposite sides of the ‘abortion-communion’ debate.
Mgr Burke rose to fame in 2004 after announcing he would refuse communion to the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, because of his position on legalised abortion. On the other hand, Mgr Wuerl has repeatedly said he will not refuse communion to politicians who took similar positions.
Like his predecessor in Washington, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Mgr Wuerl has indicated he does not want to turn the reception of Holy Communion into a political battleground. Mgr Burke has politely described the arguments of his fellow prelates as “nonsense”.
Different models of the Church are making different Polish bishops take diverse positions on the proposed in vitro fertilisation legislation, whose contents should not be confused with those of the report presented to our Parliament.
According to Catholic World News, retired Archbishop Tadeusz Goclowski of Gdansk said a politician who disagrees with Church teachings should “make his own decision according to his own conscience”. On the other hand, Archbishop Henryk Hoser said legislators who support the proposal “will automatically find themselves outside of the Church”.
Back to Malta. I think the publication of the above-referred-to statement on divorce and conscience is not the last word we have heard on the subject, as the model that opposes such a position is still too ingrained in the mentality of many pastoral operators. The debate continues.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt