Posted on 01/17/2014 5:04:10 AM PST by markomalley
Back in September, Damon Linker wrote in the New Republic that liberal Catholics were likely to become disillusioned with Pope Francis, because the Pope was not likely to change Catholic doctrines. Now, writing in The Week, he reports that hes even more concerned, because liberal Catholics dont seem to care.
Linker, in case youre wondering, is generally quite sympathetic to liberal Catholics. But hes upset by the gushing commentary on the new Pope, because he sees no real prospects for the doctrinal reforms that are his fondest hope. There are too many institutional obstacles, he believes, to allow for changes in dogma.
(In case you couldnt guess, the questions on which Linker wants doctrinal reforms are abortion, contraception, and the ordination of women. He also wants to see an end to priestly celibacy, but acknowledges that this is not a doctrinal issue.)
After making his argument that reform of the Roman Curia is not enough, and major doctrinal change is necessary, Linker participated in a radio call-in show, and was taken aback when one caller, Trish from Kentucky, took issue with his emphasis on formal Church teachings. Doctrine for a Catholic, now, is not even an issue, said Trish.
Linker suspects that Trish is not unusual: that many liberal Catholics take the same dismissive attitude toward dogma. And this worries him, because if liberals are not pressing for doctrinal change, change will not come about. It worries, him, too, that liberal Catholics maintain their affiliation with a Church whose doctrines they do not support. Why do you continue to attend church and think of yourself as a Catholic? he asks them.
Good question. The same question could be posed to Catholics who agree with Linker, however. If they are convinced that the Church must change her doctrines--if they disagree with the doctrines she now proclaimsthen evidently they do not accept the teaching authority of the Church. Thus they believe that the Church is not what she claims to be: the authoritative voice of the truths passed down by Jesus Christ through his apostles. If they consider the Catholic Church a fraud, why do they continue to think of themselves as Catholics?
When the question is phrased that way, the homely pragmatism of Trish from Kentucky seems more plausible, and one understands why Linker is frightened that many other Catholics think like Trish. They are Catholics not because they profess what the Church teachesin fact they would favor major changesbut because....Well, just because theyre Catholics. They feel an attachment to the faith. They might even enjoy attending Mass from time to time. Theyre ready to talk about Pope Francis and the prospects for Vatican reform. But the truth is that theyre not terribly interested in matters of faith.
Matthew Schmitz, writing for First Things, offers an interesting response to Linkers lament. Its unfortunately true, he argues, that many Catholics take no interest in matters of doctrine. It has become a habit, he explains:
For the past fifty years, indifference to Church teaching has been actively encouraged by bishops, priests, and catechists. Official episcopal announcements, books from Catholic presses, winking homilies, and a culture of silence on moral matters not only gave room for dissent but made assent actively difficult. Catholics in the pews simply followed the cues.
Theres a good reason why liberal Catholics dont care about dogma, Schmitz concludes: its that the Church has taught them not to care. Thats not quite right. Its not the Churchthe Body of Christthat has taught indifference. But its all too true that prominent Church leaders and Church institutions have encouraged Catholics to view doctrines as optional. I tell the same sad story in my forthcoming book Countercultural Catholic.
In the early centuries of the Christian era, believing Catholics were ready to fight to the death over questions of doctrine. They cared. For them it was a question of integrity; they would not pretend to share a common faith with others who held different beliefs.
Todays liberal Catholics, Damon Linker fears, dont have the integrity to admit that they dont believe what their Church teaches. They may recite the Nicene Creed, if and when they show up for Sunday Mass; but they dont actually profess the faith. Its not that they are heretics (although thats a possibility); its rather that they dont care.
So Linkers question is a legitimate one. If liberal Catholics dont believe what the Church proclaims, why do they still identify themselves as Catholics? From the opposite perspective, why does the Church not demand more of them, asking for a more credible form of assent? The closing line of Linkers essay poses a question that should trouble us all: When does a church without a doctrine cease to be a church at all?
Anyone who expects a “non-believing Catholic” to be concerned about a doctrinal revolution in the Catholic Church is missing the point entirely. A “non-believing Catholic” doesn’t care any more about Catholic doctrine than he or she does about the rituals and traditions of Judaism or Islam.
Yes, a very sad state of affairs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.