What Is With the U.S. Bishops and Religious Liberty?

By Paula Ruddy

Are the bishops worried about religious liberty or about women using contraceptives? Being honest about this is tremendously important. The bishops’ moral authority is at stake as well as Catholic respect as citizens for the U.S. legal system. A nation’s legal system is only as strong as the people’s respect for it. We cannot afford the U.S. bishops’ tearing down the rule of law.

The case of Catholic non-profits before the Supreme Court illustrates the problem. Catholic bishops teach that the use of contraceptives is morally wrong. The U.S government leaves the decision about personal morality to individuals. It wants insurance companies who provide health care insurance through employers to make it free and easy to get contraceptives for those women employees who want them because reproduction is a factor in women’s health care.

Churches are exempt and don’t have to cover contraception for their employees. But Catholic non-profits – hospitals, social welfare agencies, and nursing homes – employ lots of women, Catholic and not Catholic, and they want to be exempt from offering coverage too. The government offered an accommodation. Their employees would still get coverage but the religious non-profits would not have to pay, arrange for, or implement. All they would have to do is notify the government or the insurer of opt-out.

The U.S. bishops have opposed the government all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court has to decide whether the free exercise of religion of the Catholics who run the non-profits is “substantially burdened” by the government’s requirement to notify them in accepting the accommodation.

Although the insurance coverage doesn’t require any woman to use contraceptives, it does make it free and easy for them to use them if they want. I think that is the point of the U.S. bishops’ opposition. They do not want to make it free and easy for women, Catholic or not, to use contraceptives. So it isn’t about the government forcing Catholics to do something against their religion, it is about preventing women from the free and easy use of contraceptives.

If the bishops valued liberty, they would honor the free consciences of women on the issue of their family planning. Instead they are interested in coercive prevention and getting the U.S. government to do the job. Positioning themselves as victims of religious intolerance is not honest. The dishonesty of it it destroys the moral authority of the bishops in the eyes of Catholics and all our fellow citizens. The Catholic bishops should pull the plug on the religious liberty campaign immediately.

But why do the bishops care so much about contraceptives that they are willing to do so much harm to prevent women from using them? I think they are dismayed by the sexual freedoms the U.S. government has recognized in the last 50 years and they are worried about the Catholic family. From the use of contraception in the 1960’s to gay marriage in 2015, one after another laws controlling sexual practices, reproduction, and marriage have been overturned in the U.S. The bishops may believe that people’s attitudes toward family is affected by the use of contraceptives. They may believe it is harder for Catholic families to raise their children within the boundaries of Catholic sexual morality in the sexually permissive contemporary culture.

If the Catholic family is the bishops’ concern, instead of tearing down respect for the U.S. legal system, they should ask three hard questions:

• How can we strengthen the Catholic family to internalize moral standards so they do not need the coercion of law? Legality is not a sufficient standard for morality.

• How shall we re-think our moral teaching on sexual practice so that it makes sense to Catholic families to live by? This is not accommodation to secularism. It is about being responsible.

• How do we partner with our fellow citizens, religious and secular, to build a mainstream culture of responsibility and healthy family living? This would require Catholic bishops to learn from the rest of society how to relate productively with people who think differently from them.

There is no time to lose in stopping the religious liberty campaign and asking the right questions.


Related Off-site Link:
Nondiscrimination Laws Merit Church Support – Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler (National Catholic Reporter, April 19, 2016).

See also the previous PCV posts:
• What is This Furor About Religious Liberty?
• Fortnight of Freedom: Hypocrisy of the U.S. Bishops
• Your Fist – My Nose
• Quote of the Day – June 4, 2012

CCCR Representatives Meet with Archbishop Hebda

Above: St. Paul-Minneapolis Interim Archbishop Bernard Hebda (center) with CCCR board members (from left) Art Stoeberl, Michael Bayly and Paula Ruddy – September 3, 2015.


On Thursday afternoon, September 3, three board members of the Twin Cities-based Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR), Art Stoeberl, Michael Bayly and Paula Ruddy, met with Interim-Archbishop Bernard Hebda. By all accounts, it was a very cordial and productive meeting.

Following is part of Elizabeth A. Elliott's National Catholic Reporter coverage of CCCR's meeting with Archbishop Hebda.

As the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese prepares for a new leader, the Vatican-appointed interim administrator has met with a Catholic reform group that the former archbishop had warned his flock against joining.

Archbishop Bernard Hebda, appointed apostolic administrator following the resignation of Archbishop John C. Nienstedt and Auxiliary Bishop Lee A. Piché in June, met September 3 with members of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) of Minnesota.

"I was pleased to meet with three members of the CCCR and was delighted to learn that they share my interest in engaging in a wide consultation of the faithful in assessing the needs of the archdiocese," Hebda said in a statement to NCR. "I was also happy to share with them some of the preliminary plans for that consultation, and appreciated their input and offer of collaboration."

Hebda met with Paula Ruddy, a member of the CCCR board, Michael Bayly and Art Stoeberl.

Ruddy told NCR, "We are interested in having a lay voice, a broad and open consultation for who the next archbishop will be. We are asking that [Hebda] would expand the process of choosing the archbishop to include all people in the archdiocese at an open meeting."

The coalition co-chair, Bob Beutel, wasn't at the meeting with Hebda, but he said he was pleased to hear that the archbishop was cordial and had heard of their organization. "It was nice to get that recognition."

Beutel said the organization was waiting to hear about the listening schedule the diocese has in the works which will be eight sessions at four different locations. [NOTE: Click here for an update on the times and venues of these sessions.] He said the organization would "like to see people make known what kind of person the new bishop should be, the kind of vetting that should be done and suggestions of people who might be a good bishop might be."

To read Elizabeth A. Elliott's NCR article in its entirety, click here.

Our Next Archbishop: What Would You Ask a Candidate If You Knew Your Voice Would Be Heard?

.
The following is from the leadership of the Twin Cities-based Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR).


We are currently seeking an opportunity to express our needs and desires to those who are appointing our next Archbishop, with the hope that they care what we – and, indeed, all Catholics in the local church – need and desire.

Can you imagine an organization that depends for its bread and butter on people’s voluntary contributions not caring what those people think?

Can you imagine an organization that preaches loudly that Jesus is its Lord ignoring the people it is its mission to serve?

Let’s hope that the Papal Nuncio who is the organization’s man in the U.S. and Archbishop Bernard A. Hebda, the temporary administrator, will accept CCCR’s offer to set up an open and broad consultation process before the appointment of the new Archbishop.

In the meantime . . .

If you had a seat on the selection committee in Rome, making a recommendation to the Pope for appointment, what would you look for in a candidate for St. Paul and Minneapolis?

Please let us know by sending as e-mail to PCV editor Michael Bayly at mbayly1965@yahoo.com.

Michael is continually adding to this post the feedback he receives on what local Catholics are looking for in their next archbishop.

Listed below (in most recent to earliest order) are the comments received to date.

I would like to see a rare presence - one who doesn't have the spirit of timidity in speaking about the deep misogyny in the Church, and exposing it as not of Christ.

– Elizabeth Rainsford-McMahon

Many critical attributes have already been offered and I agree with all of them. Most importantly, I think, is someone who has a welcoming attitude to all Catholics as well as the greater community. Someone who recognizes that many of the faithful have been hurt, disenfranchised, condemned, and turned away from the Church they love. Someone who embraces all, recognizes the beauty and value of diversity, and listens carefully and respectfully. And someone who has the intellect and courage to lead us (at both the local level as well as within the world Church) to a Church more fully embracing of gospel values for all God’s people.

– Kathy Andrus

I would like to see the next bishop (whether male or female) be one who acts first to help the victim of abuse rather than trying to protect the person causing harm; I would like to see the next bishop work as a pastor - spending a month (from time to time) serving as a parish priest in different places in the archdiocese.

I would like to see the next bishop:

• address changes in the formation of candidates for the priesthood by revising the curriculum; hiring lay
couples to teach courses; to require extensive hands on internships in social justice agencies

• establish ministries by and for LGBT people, homeless people, and non-Catholic/former Catholic people

• open discussion on the elimination of celibacy rules

• rent a "double wide" trailer for a residence and donate the bishop's throne at the Cathedral to the Pentecostal church in Brooklyn Center ( the current priests residence would make a great emergency shelter and short term rooms for homeless teenagers.

– Art Stoeberl

At the risk of replicating some of the qualities that others have suggested, I offer my thoughts on the ideal person for the position. He (I suppose it has to be a male) should be someone whom the majority of people respect because of his proven record of trying to create a community of the faithful. To this end, he needs to actively listen and respond with compassion to what he hears. He needs to identify with the real concerns of the people and to interpret the teachings of the church in light of the 21st society in which we live. To this end, he will need to understand that the findings of scientists and psychologists mean we must change our understanding of the environment and human behavior. Finally, he will need courage to take a position that may sometimes be opposed to those of higher standing in the church.

– Patricia Mulrooney Eldred

After reading the comments and suggestions already offered concerning the next Archbishop and the qualities people would like to see, I concur with what has been said. The quality I want to raise up is looking to the possibility of the next archbishop being from here. I think part of the difficulties encountered by the two previous archbishops – Flynn and Nienstedt – were that they were outsiders. I don’t know if they ever caught up with this culture. There was an article in the NCR a few weeks ago that spoke about the Old Boys’ Network that was/is involved in how men become archbishops. Nienstedt was used an example in how he ended up here.

With this in mind, I strongly urge the powers-that-be to name a local person to be the next Archbishop – either a bishop elsewhere whose roots are here or someone is not yet a bishop. I believe we need someone whose roots are here and knows our culture.

– Mark Scannell

For too long, our archdiocese has suffered from a "small tent" mentality. An atmosphere of exclusion has alienated large numbers of Catholic who experience their faith in ways different from the archbishop. This has created polarization and caused a fragmented and divided local Church.

Our new archbishop must be someone who welcomes all Catholics. He must create forums whereby he can dialog with and listen to Catholics with diverse lived experiences. He must be a bridge builder who leads our local Church into an atmosphere of diverse conversations, loving inclusion, and Christ-like welcome. Our next archbishop must create a tent large enough for all!

– Mary Beth Stein

Give us one who is transparent, accountable, and responsive to the needs of the people, acting with Love and Compassion as Jesus lived and taught; doctrine and dogma be d----d.

– John Chuchman

It would be great if the new Archbishop knew how the laity has longed for dialog with him and longed for his visibility to all of us; how we have been saddened and alienated by our leader traveling constantly away from his people; and how we are discouraged by the Catholic flock diminishing before our eyes. And he needs to know that there is a great need for healing - and it has not begun for many of us.

– Bonnie Strand

Yes to what has been previously presented, and . . . a bishop who fulfills Pope Francis's "missionary option" as expressed in #27 of The Joy of the Gospel. "...a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the churches customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today's world rather than for her self preservation.... To make ordinary pastoral activity on every level more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with him."

– Don Conroy

I would look for a man with the Christian vision "Here comes everybody!" All are welcome. We are on the move to co-create the Kingdom of God, so let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.

– Paula Ruddy

I'd like to see as our next archbishop an educated person who is generally perceived to be mature, stable and pastoral in style. Someone familiar with the spectrum of theological thought, but who relates well to young people and disenfranchised people, and has an understanding of the economic, social, psychological, and technological challenges they face today. Someone who might aspire to soothing the hearts and souls of people living in a wounded culture. Someone who might represent Church as a beacon of hope in an increasingly hopeless world. Leadership, kindness, empathy, intelligence, and humility might be good starting points. A very big order.

– Mary Lynn Murphy

The next archbishop should have compassion, and mercy. He should be familiar to this area, the culture and history. It is important that the new leader listen to the many voices that love their church. The archbishop must be skilled in healing and at the same time progressive in stimulating new growth.

– Nancy Gotto

I think we’d all be looking for someone from our region that knows the people and their outlook.

I would want someone willing to talk to their own staff, interact with both ordained and lay people, and have open forums throughout the diocese from time to time so they would always have their finger on the pulse of the community.

Someone willing to be open about structure, budget items, costs, income, and expenditures of the diocese.

Someone aware that the ordained are not above the people, but were ordained to serve the people.

Someone willing to make the changes and adjustments necessary to see that abuse is never again ignored

Someone willing to agree with the pope that we are not called to judge people, that God can handle that all alone.

– Frank Meuers

What we desperately need in a new bishop is someone who can relate to our young people. It has been brought to my attention that very few weddings are taking place in church, that young people see Confirmation as a graduation from having to learn anything more about their faith, and that anyone who attended Easter Vigils were made painfully aware of how few people joined the church

I think it is absolutely necessary to convene a panel of young people, teenagers as well as 20-30 year-olds to seriously listen to them and heed their concerns. If we do not do something soon, I don't see much hope for the future of the church. What is desperately needed is visionary leadership - the time is ripe, let's take advantage of it.

– Mary Beckfeld

Share your thoughts by e-mailing a comment to
mbayly1965@yahoo.com

Fortnight of Freedom: Hypocrisy of the U.S. Bishops

By Paula Ruddy

The U.S. Bishops have zeroed in on the main evil of our society for a two-week highlight: our religious liberty is under attack. The evils Pope Francis points to in his recent encyclical Laudato si’  – poverty, racism, environmental degradation, the commodification of women – are not the main problems we face as citizens of this nation. No, for the U.S. bishops the main problem for us is that Catholics are being denied religious liberty in the U.S. The hypocritical self-reference is embarrassing.

Since when have Roman Catholic bishops cared about religious liberty for Catholics within their own institutions? Employees have to sign an oath of orthodoxy to teach in schools or work in parishes. Pastors have to seek approval for speakers in their parishes. Questioning Catholics may not assemble on parish property and are condemned as “dissenters.” Whole communities of Catholics are banished from communion because their liturgical practice is not uniform. How “free” is religion and religious practice in the Roman Catholic Church?

Since when have Roman Catholic bishops valued individual liberty as a factor of human dignity? The Roman Catholic bishops of the U.S. have been determined to deny gay and lesbian citizens the freedom to marry under civil law. They have fought the individual liberty of women in choosing to reproduce. They have fought to separate Catholics from the “world” in a superior and isolated “Catholic identity” by constant preaching about the evils of individual liberty in the larger society.

American Catholics have been formed in the values of two traditions – the value of community in the Roman Catholic tradition and the value of individual liberty in the U.S. democratic tradition. Most of us have learned to value both, to integrate the two more or less successfully. We try to avoid both the excesses of “group think” and the excesses of “go-it-alone” individualism. We have to do this without the support of our institutional church.

The U.S. bishops who focus on the Roman Catholic traditional values exclusively are increasingly irrelevant to Catholics who have integrated the values of individual liberty and equality from the U.S. democratic tradition. They are entirely irrelevant and antagonizing to citizens of other religions and no religion.

The tragedy of this situation is that Roman Catholic community values have a great contribution to make to a society that can tend too easily to the excesses of individual liberty. To contribute the vision of human community Pope Francis provides in Laudato si’ to the U.S., the U.S. bishops will also have to affirm and demonstrate value for individual liberty.

As things stand, their “Fortnight of Freedom” has the sound of a tinkling cymbal.

Still Dialoguing with the Archbishop: The Catechism?

By Paula Ruddy


At CCCR’s meeting with Archbishop John C. Nienstedt on January 20, the Archbishop mentioned that one of the valuable results of Vatican II was the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He didn’t elaborate.

At the word “catechism” a dark cloud enveloped my liberal soul. In a good faith effort to be open-minded here, I have to ask why I have that reaction.

I remember loving the Baltimore Catechism as a child in the 1940’s. It was a little blue book with questions and answers. The second question and answer I still love: “ Where is God? God is everywhere.” We memorized the questions and answers for catechism class at All Saints Parish in Lakeville, and we were called on, in fear and trembling, to answer questions at Confirmation. My mother and father could still spout the answers from their childhoods at St. Luke’s and St. Michael’s in St. Paul. There was open discussion on any and all questions, as I recall. In the hurly-burly of everyday life, the catechism questions and answers were tucked away on the hard drive of our minds for the most part, forming us somehow. They were articulated there if we needed them.

So why is an “adult” catechism such a problem to me now? I have a copy on my bookshelf. Can it be a comprehensive set of statements, most of which I value highly, without actually reducing Catholicism to a set of statements?

Is there a way to use the catechism to turn toward the world with the Gospel vision of the reign of God here and now, all of us evolving toward full union with God through conflict, suffering and joy, as in Jesus’ own life? Can the catechism support and enrich the Christian vision and help in the daily discernment of faithful living?

Help me out here. Am I the only one with a “catechism” attitude problem? What would the grown-up attitude be? If you use the catechism as a meditative reading, please tell us about it. Thanks.

Dialoguing with the Archbishop: Unity With or Without Diversity

By Paula Ruddy


Archbishop John Nienstedt met with a delegation from CCCR and Council of the Baptized on January 20 in a conference room at the Chancery Office in St. Paul. The delegates were Bob Beutel, co-chair of the CCCR Board, Mary Beth Stein, co-chair of Council of the Baptized, and I, a member of the CCCR Board. The Archbishop had invited Bishop Andrew Cozzens and Father Erich Rutten to join us.

Archbishop Nienstedt was cordial, gave us an hour of his time, and accepted the agenda we proposed. He led us in prayer to start the meeting. The agenda was 1) to explain the mission of CCCR and Council of the Baptized, 2) to explore how we could work together to comply with Pope Francis’s request for lay input for the Synod on the Family to take place in Rome in October 2015, and 3) we also wanted to know generally how we could work together to make our archdiocese a growth supportive community for all.

The Archbishop listened carefully while Bob explained the mission and activities of our joint organizations. When Bob had finished, the Archbishop asked this question: How do you think of yourselves as a Catholic organization when some of the member organizations of the coalition have opted out of the Roman Catholic Church?

Good question. We all talked about it in the spontaneous way that semi-formal conversation happens. I don’t have a transcript, but I had the perception that we reached some understanding with the Archbishop. He said he understood us more clearly and we went on to the next item on the agenda.

The question is an important one for CCCR and Council of the Baptized. How do we think of ourselves as Catholic when people are all over the board on Catholic teaching? Our policy, we explained to the Archbishop, has been to accept anyone who self-identifies as Catholic, and, at the same time, keep all the questions open for discussion, on the assumption that discussion is the way for people to grow toward truth in their thinking.

Is CCCR/Council of the Baptized justified in its policy of inclusion?

The question gets muddled up with the ideas of subjectivity and objectivity. Is being Catholic about being under the canonical jurisdiction of a bishop? That would be objective. Is it about identifying yourself as a Catholic? That would be subjective. Is it about having had water poured over your head with the right words as a baby and having been registered in a Catholic parish? Is it about giving internal assent (subjective) to statements in a catechism (objective)? Is it about getting yourself physically to Mass every Sunday and obeying the laws of the church (objective)? Can it be completely subjective with no external observance? Can it be completely objective with no internal assent?

Let’s say it is about both/and. Some objective observance and some internal assent. To draw lines we have to identify the essential objective observances and the essential subjection requirements. Has that been done? How are they tested? By whom? Is the person making the objective judgment using any subjectivity? Is determining who is in and who is out part of the mission of the church?

Is CCCR/Council of the Baptized justified in trusting the Holy Spirit to work within a whole community of self-identifying Catholics who are all across the board in their thinking and in their observance and yet somehow drawn to grow within this community? Does Jesus’s point about letting the weeds grow with the wheat have relevance? Or his caution not to snuff out the smoldering wick?

Or is it better to draw lines for being either in or out and to provide programming in standard thinking and practice to support the people who are in? In a fragmented world with so many influences working against the Christian faith, is it necessary to get clear on some formulations of truth and zero in on a faith formation?

Choosing between these two modes of operating—inclusion or exclusion—is necessary to run a coherent program. So it is a fundamental question. What do you think?

Broadly Catholic, Narrowly Catholic: Can the Two Ways Pull Together to Save the Institutional Church?

Question posted by Paula Ruddy


As much as we all want this long culture war to be over, the conflict is hard to resolve. It came up in a committee in my parish this week; it is the main thread on the dotcommonweal blog just now about the role of Catholic theologians. The conflict is a constant undercurrent in Catholic life.

Usually labeled “liberalism” and “conservatism,” the division has been thoroughly analyzed for why it exists, what historical and psychological factors account for it. But what is the bottom line?

I’m calling it a difference between broad and narrow and I am asking you not to place a value on either word for the time being. Like the uses of optical lenses, both broad and narrow are good, but they are different. Narrow can be “bad” because it misses a lot. Broad can be “bad” because it can get very fuzzy without showing anything clearly. There are upsides and downsides to both.

Broadly Catholic Catholics recognize God in “the world” (hereafter BC’s). Another way of being Catholic is to recognize God within the Roman Catholic magisterial world, as distinct from “the world.” It is a narrower focus (hereafter NC’s). BC’s set out into the “secular” world in a maze of paths, highways, byways, guided by faith, the tradition, and a community, discerning the true, the good, and the beautiful from step to step. NC’s are happy with the path laid out by the magisterial community, illuminating the true, the good, and the beautiful in age old forms, warning of fruitless byways and evil open highways. Tradition is a guide to the BC’s, a set path for the NC’s. Too simple, I know, but the general idea is useful.

The bottom line raises fearful questions: if most Catholics turn to “the world” to be broadly Catholic, will the Roman Catholic magisterial world fall apart? If dogma is discarded because we all now know that truth is always on the horizon of knowledge, and goodness and beauty are all around us, what will happen to the magisterium? Will it have finances and authority to continue? If that world falls apart, how will the tradition be maintained and grow? Will most “broadly Catholic” people lose their way to the world’s banality without the guidance of the large community? Will Catholics who depend most on the Roman Catholic magisterial world be left behind with no support?

I see the magisterium in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis trying to solve the problem by narrowing the focus, trying to gather Catholics together for strength inside the corral of dogma, Catholic identity, pre-Vatican II practices, condemnation of “broadly Catholic” and “the world.” They are looking to Evangelical Protestantism for ways to narrow the focus and attract more people to be churched.

Wouldn’t it be better to spend the energy talking with the “broadly Catholic” to find ways to support all Catholics in living in the world and maybe even to influence the world? Could we get some leadership in that direction? What does anyone think?

Local Catholics Respond to Pope's Interview

By Beth Hawkins


Note: This article was first published September 23, 2013 by MinnPost.

.
For Mary Beth Stein, church services Sunday were a breath of fresh air. “There was great excitement, actually, in my community,” she said. “The word of the day is hopeful.”

Generating the excitement was the extensive interview with Pope Francis published last week in which the new pontiff said the Roman Catholic Church had become “obsessed” with gay marriage, abortion and contraception.

“The pope in his interview indicated he is keeping an open mind and he is willing to engage in conversation,” said Stein, who attends the progressive St. Frances Cabrini in Minneapolis. “The windows have been quite closed for the last couple of decades. Today, the windows were open and the spirit was blowing in.”

The church should refocus its efforts on becoming more inclusive, on poverty, war and social justice issues, Francis said in the 10,000-word interview, which was published simultaneously by 16 journals around the world Thursday morning.


“Not all equivalent”

“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent,” the 76-year-old former Jorge Mario Bergoglio told the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, the editor of Rome’s leading Jesuit journal. “The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently . . . .

“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel,” Francis also said. “The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.”

Most important to local progressive Catholics, who are increasing pressure for transparency in the wake of the Archbishop John Nienstedt’s decision to use church resources to fight marriage equality, Pope Francis indicated a desire to open up conversation at all levels of the church.

“I myself am very, very encouraged by what Pope Francis had to say because it opens up dialogue between the laity and the hierarchy,” said Paula Ruddy, a leader of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform.

Conservative local Catholics were quick to fire back that the pope did not change church doctrine or teachings, but rather suggested his papacy would be marked by a focus on service to the poor, as was his time as a cardinal in Brazil.

One Twin Cities parishioner who asked not to be identified said there was no mention of the interview during services Sunday at her church. Asked about Francis' interview after Mass, the priest told her the news media sometimes gets things wrong and that reading the entire interview shows "nothing has changed."


Statement from Nienstedt

Nienstedt issued a formal statement on the interview Friday. “We are delighted and inspired by Pope Francis’ extraordinary efforts to reach out and proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ,” the written statement said. “We reaffirm our allegiance to the Holy Father and extend our hands in service to all who are in need, without condition.

“Building on the core teachings of the Church, which remain clear and unaltered, the Pope’s call to embolden all Christian disciples to joyfully proclaim the Gospel throughout the world is deeply welcomed,” the short statement continued. “In new and bold ways, Pope Francis continues to build on the legacy of his predecessors in calling for the faithful to awaken and live out the Gospel message.”

Spokesman Jim Accurso said the statement would be the Archdiocese’s only response to the interview.

Executive coordinator of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN and a longtime proponent of church reform, Michael Bayly had conflicting feelings.

“I appreciate the shift in focus from doctrine to meeting people where they’re at,” he said. “For me it translates to the church not spending its resources on things like funding a campaign to stop civil marriage [for same-sex couples].”

At the same time, Bayly said, he did not hear anything that indicated a move away from a monarchical system in which the next pope could simply “switch back.”

“I appreciate what he said, but as a gay man I am disappointed that those really hurtful, harmful teachings are still there,” he said. “The system is still set up so that the bishop still calls the shots, still has final say about things.”

Like others, he said he expects Francis’ remarks to have a greater impact on dispirited Catholics than on the local archdiocese. “If you’re conservative-minded, like Nienstedt, this is not going to change that,” Bayly said. “This is why it is so important to have some kind of church reform.”


Recalling Second Vatican Council

A doctor of theology, Hudson resident William Hunt was present at Vatican II, the 1960s council that moved the church toward a peace-and-justice focus, among other things.

“One of the emphases of the Vatican Council was looking out at the world and looking at religious freedom and humanism and social justice,” he said. “Popes John Paul II and Benedict were about circling the wagons to keep the problems of the world from seeping into the church.”

Francis, Hunt continued, “seems to bring an openness to the world.” The archbishop is right, for instance, when he says that doctrine has not changed. But in his interview, Francis emphasized the importance of “discernment.”

The hierarchy will retain authority to make decisions but should listen, Hunt heard the pope say: “A superior spends a lot of time sounding out the people who will have to live with the consequences.”

American bishops are overwhelmingly more vocal about the doctrinal issues Francis wants to de-emphasize, Hunt added. Yet the pope is urging them to “look not at how [people] are labeled, but at who they are.”

Church teachings may still condemn abortion, for instance, but confronted with an individual parishioner, leaders “have to really look at what causes a woman to seek an abortion.”
Shift regarding peace

Hunt also sees a shift toward Francis’ beliefs regarding peace. In 2002, U.S. bishops issued a statement on President George Bush’s talk of invading Iraq that stopped short of saying they opposed it. After the pope vehemently opposed talk of military intervention in Syria, American bishops issued a strong statement of agreement.

And Stein is quick to point out that Francis made it quite clear that dissenting voices were welcome.

“He also issued a challenge to all of us because sometimes people on the progressive end of Catholicism, sometimes it’s easy to fall into blaming conservative Catholics,” she said. “The pope challenged all of us to not do that. He challenged all of us to keep open hearts.”

Stein also is encouraged about the upcoming reform-oriented Synod of the Baptized, which is scheduled to take place this weekend at the Ramada Mall of America. With hope for change in the air, she's looking forward to an energized gathering.

However, partly because of fatigue following marriage-equality and voter-restriction campaigns and because Francis’ tone since his March election has removed some of the sense of urgency, attendance is expected to be down at the synod.


“Restored a lot of people's hope”

“I think this pope has restored a lot of people’s hope in the church after the damage Nienstedt did,” said Bayly. “People are commenting on Facebook how much they like this new pope and they’re not even Catholic.”

Why? “His inclusiveness, his openness to where people are at on their journey, which to me is totally reflective of Jesus. That’s what people are recognizing and responding to.”

As a bishop, the new pope was known for living a simple life and for focusing his energy on the poor and the marginalized. At the Vatican, he has installed himself in a guest house rather than the papal apartment, which he has decried as too isolated.

To Bayly, this speaks volumes.

“Whenever you are eye to eye with someone, you’re more open to their experience,” he said. “If you shut people out, you never hear their voices and they can’t inform the Catholic narrative.”


See also the previous PCV posts:
Quote of the Day – September 23, 2013
The Pope's Radical Whisper
Countdown to Synod 2013

Recommended Off-site Links:
Minnesota Catholics Weigh In on Pope's criticism of church's emphasis on abortion, gays – Rose French (Star Tribune, September 21, 2013).
Pope's Blunt Remarks Pose Challenge for Bishops – Rachel Zoll (Associated Press via Yahoo! News, September 21, 2013).
In Light of Pope Francis' Interview, Where Are the U.S. Bishops? – Mary Ann McGivern (National Catholic Reporter, September 24, 2013).
Pope Francis is a Liberal – William Saletan (Slate, September 19, 2013).
What the Church Needs More Than a "Good Pope" – Mary Hunt (Religion Dispatches, September 20, 2013).
Quote of the Day – The Wild Reed (September 24, 2013).

Dueling Worldviews

By Paula Ruddy


Did you know that . . .

• Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) is holding
its third Synod of the Baptized on Saturday, September 28,
at Ramada MOA in Bloomington,

and

Archbishop John Nienstedt is holding a
“Rediscover Catholicism” conference on Saturday,
October 12, at St. Paul RiverCentre.

• CCCR’s keynoter is Sister Gail Worcelo, who will talk
about co-creating the living church, a vision
for reform for the 21st Century,

and

Archbishop Nienstedt has invited George Weigel to address the Rediscover celebration. Weigel’s book Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st Century Church (2013)
writes the prescription for curing the "disease"
we are experiencing in the church today.

Both CCCR and the Archbishop agree that reform is necessary. That is a great step forward.

Now can we come together on a program for reform?

The Archbishop seems inclined to adopt George Weigel’s program for reform, called Evangelical Catholicism. It has many good points we could all agree on. We all want to respond to God’s love by uniting our hearts and souls to the divine, what Weigel calls cultivating “friendship with Jesus.” We all want to witness to God’s love in the world, evangelism. We all want the Church to be a community modeling that living witness. We all need institutional leaders, bishops, to provide a structure for our communal life and to serve the mission Jesus gives us.


Worldview One

Here is the rub. Weigel’s program is based on the idea that “what the Church teaches” and “what the Gospel reveals” are one and the same. If you are calling yourself “Catholic” you must accept that the Holy Spirit is with the bishops alone when it comes to Church teaching. There is no room for our experience that there are disconnects between the Gospel and Church policies and practices. There is no justification for lay people’s questioning the bishops. My raising the question here about what program of reform the Archbishop should adopt is utterly out-of-line in the Evangelical Catholic worldview. Weigel says the bishop is not a discussion club leader. There is no such thing as “loyal dissent.” If I were “thinking with the mind of the Church” in this cultural framework, I would not address the same questions the Archbishop must address, like “What is good for this Archdiocese.” Rather I’d ask “What does the Archbishop say is good for this Archdiocese?” Then, receiving the answer, I’d get wholeheartedly behind his program. Being Catholic is entering into a life of identity with Catholic culture.

Given this worldview, it is no wonder Archbishop Nienstedt is dismayed by CCCR’s asking the questions that are within his job description and questioning his judgments. From this point of view, it is impudence, rebellion, defiant “dissent”, entirely out-of-line for us to question his opposition to civil marriage for same-sex couples or to question any position the bishops espouse. Within the “symphony of truth” that is Catholic culture, priests and laity get behind the bishop’s programs whatever they are. It is no wonder that he tells us to go to another church. In his view, we aren’t “Catholic.”

Reading Weigel’s book was a revelation to me. In all my 78 years of being Catholic I never thought asking questions was impudent or rebellious. I always thought it was being helpful. During the civil marriage debates I always expected the Archbishop to respond to reasoning with counter-reasoning. I never understood how a repetition of the Church’s position was thought to be sufficient as an answer to an argument. Now that I glimpse into that worldview I can see that from that point of view a statement of the bishops’ position is enough. Asking for reasons is a challenge to authority. I see now what a disappointment we were, just as his refusal to reason together was a disappointment to us.


Worldview Two

The worldview I take for granted with CCCR is based on the belief that the Holy Spirit is with everyone of good will working through human agency. God is both immanent — in the world — and transcendent — more than the world. In this culture people are responsible to contribute whatever insights or values they have to the common project. The market-place of ideas sorts the valuable from the not so valuable. We come to a shared understanding, agreeing on what is needed, and throw ourselves into the common project. It is a different culture from Evangelical Catholicism, but it is firmly Catholic in its grounding in incarnation. We belong to the institutionalized community of the Church in which there are many cultures contributing their points of view.

Weigel says this worldview is born of modernism, postmodernism, “the imperial, autonomous Self”, individualism, too much psychology, subjectivism — all in all, an evil perspective. Anyone who doesn’t “think with the mind of the Church”, i.e. unquestioningly support the bishops’ leadership, is to be called out as a weed among the wheat. He gives lots of examples of weeds: Hans Küng, Roger Haight, Elizabeth Johnson, the sisters of the LCWR, and anyone who opposes the bishops’ positions in the political arena.

Thank God Weigel is not our Archbishop. Maybe John Nienstedt, though he shares Weigel’s worldview, will have the grace of his pastoral office to visit our point of view as we visit his. He will see that we do not intend to encroach on his God-given role. We know he is the “chief catechist” and we want to work with him. Our process would be to sit down with the Archbishop and other stakeholders to work it out together, taking into account differences among us and being careful for all. That is what “reason” is for.

We can hope that our Archbishop will listen to Pope Francis instead of George Weigel. Pope Francis seems to love the world.

We ask only one thing: that you reach out! And that you go and seek out and encounter the most needy! . . . Does this mean going to convince someone to become Catholic? No, no, no! You are just reaching out to meet him, he is your brother! That is enough. You reach out to help them, the rest is done by Jesus, by the Holy Spirit.

— Pope Francis to the Argentinians on the Feast of St. Cajetan
August 7, 2013.

Perhaps, emulating Francis, we can grow beyond seeing the worldviews as conflicting. We and the bishops can believe that they are intended by God to teach and lead, and, at the same time, believe that the best way for them to do that in a postmodern world is to be reasonable and attentive to the needs of the people.

Let us know what reforms you think are needed. And register for Synod 2013 at www.cccrmn.org!


See also the previous PCV posts:
Countdown to Synod 2013
A Review of Matthew Kelly's Rediscover Catholicism: A Spiritual Guide to Living with Passion and Purpose
East Side, West Side: Opposing Views of the Good
"All Voices Must Be Heard": A Response to Archbishop Nienstedt
Big Deal or No Big Deal?
A Tale of Two Cultures: Vatican and American
The Call of the Baptized: Be the Church, Live the Mission
CCCR Responds to Censure from Chancery

Recommended Off-site Link:
In the Garden of Spirituality – Ron Rolheiser – The Wild Reed (August 20, 2007).

The Archbishop’s Statement on His Marriage Amendment Defeat

By Paula Ruddy


The Archbishop has issued a statement in the wake of the defeat of his relentless campaign to make sure gay and lesbian citizens of Minnesota will never get equal protection of the civil marriage laws. He says “It has never been the aim of the Catholic Church to alienate anyone.”

Let me try to understand this: He wants to deprive some people of any possibility of living a socially accepted, legally sanctioned, married life, and they are not supposed to take that personally?

He initiated an eight year attack, pitting a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority to prevent the democratic process from working in the minority’s favor. This attempt to limit marriage by constitutional definition ultimately failed on November 6, 2012. Resisting it took a tremendous expenditure of time, energy, and money. The moral cost may never be recovered. And he never meant to alienate anyone?

Look at the history: There has been a law in Minnesota specifically prohibiting same-sex marriage since 1997. Did John Nienstedt need to do anything to prevent gay marriage? No, he didn’t, but he decided a preemptive move was necessary to prevent any future “activists, politicians, and state court judges” from changing the status quo. So he mounted his campaign to amend the Minnesota constitution with a letter signed by all the Minnesota bishops in 2004. The letter defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman “with no legal equivalents.” No legal rights at all for the homosexual minority.

In 2006, the DFL controlled the senate judiciary committee, and they kept (then) state senator Michelle Bachman’s amendment bill from a floor vote. So it did not get on the ballot. A legislator’s oath to uphold the constitution prevents him/her from putting basic human rights of a minority on the ballot for a majority to vote on. The 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution provides that the state shall not deny any person equal protection of the law. If heterosexual people have the legal right to marry, there must be good reasons to deny homosexual people that same right. Whether there are good reasons is a question for the legislators themselves to answer. It is not for a majority of voters to decide whether a minority can have equal protection of the law. I remember Senators John Marty and Dean Johnson holding that moral line in the senate judiciary committee in 2006. The Archbishop does not seem to understand this basic principle of equality in a democratic constitutional republic, or he pretends not to. I find that alienating.

With a Republican majority in the state houses in 2011, the amendment was the Minnesota Catholic Conference's top legislative priority. The Archbishop sent priests to hearings to testify for the amendment and paid lobbyists to talk to legislators. Despite their oath to uphold the constitution, the legislators put the bill on the ballot for 2012. The phrase “with no legal equivalents” had been dropped. When the Archbishop framed same-sex marriage as a threat to straight marriage and the common good, the majority was set up against the minority to assure the passage of the amendment.

During all these years and especially during 2012, the minority had to defend against this attack on a right it didn’t even have but might possibly gain in the future. It was a strenuous, expensive, and sometimes demoralizing effort. It caused anxiety, anger, and grief in both the No voters and the Yes voters. Even in the little phoning I did to ask people to vote NO, I felt rage that justice depended on people who seemed to have no awareness of the effects of their vote on other people’s lives. For them a YES vote, easily done, would have no consequences.

Some Catholics suffered conflict between their consciences and what their church was telling them to do. Family ties were strained. Priests were told to be silent on the issue. Parish staff who didn’t agree had to “stay under the radar.” Some people could not bear to pray the Archbishop’s mandatory prayer or hear their pastor’s political instruction at Sunday Mass. Catholics had to hear the leadership of their church ridiculed in the public forum. Some people left the Roman Catholic Church for good.

The moral cost, the cost in human dignity, of this campaign was enormous—and alienating.

Yes, there were also enormous joys in the gay community and its allies working together. The spirit among the people of faith community was inspiring. And thanks to the good sense and fairness of Minnesota voter, straight and gay, the Archbishop’s campaign was defeated.

But isn’t it outrageous now for the Archbishop to say in his statement that this was a normal give and take in the democratic process? He sees himself as a good citizen who has done his best in a fair and honorable contest for the common good. I think it is instead like a man who has brutally tried to cripple and rob you, coming to shake hands after he has finally failed, congratulating himself on his attempt on your life. He even says he isn’t finished with you yet. But try not to be alienated.

Is there any way to call Archbishop John C. Nienstedt to account for the damage he has done? Would we be justified in trying to do so? What is the common ground he speaks of? Many of us begged him repeatedly to reconsider his strategy to “strengthen marriage,” but with absolute power and Rome’s approval, he has no incentive to hear any other point of view.

Or is this just another occasion to shrug off the banality of evil and put up with all the cynical comments about bishops? Anyone?


Related Off-site Links:
A Call for Healing in Minnesota – Eric Fought (EricFought.com, November 12, 2012).
Chastened Catholic Bishops Told They Have to Reform Themselves – David Gibson (The Washington Post, November 12, 2012).
Bishops Stay Course on Gay Marriage Fight – Rachel Zoll (Associated Press via Yahoo! News, November 12, 2012).

East Side, West Side: Opposing Views of the Good

By Paula Ruddy


While some Catholics were gathered at the Soul Conference at St. Catherine University Saturday morning talking about the grandeur of God in the universe and the ethics of saving the planet, on the other side of town others were gathered at Our Lady of Grace Church in Edina talking about the evils of same-sex marriage.

The bishops of Minnesota sponsored the talks in Edina. Angela Pfister, ethics professor from Notre Dane, and Jason Adkins, Executive Director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference spoke for the bishops.

The bishops framed their case as a right and a duty for them to speak about a societal decline in morals. Anthony Picarello Jr., general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is reported by MPR to have said: "You need to have bishops teaching the faithful and proclaiming to the world in order to transform the culture out of which these bad thing arise. I think it took about 40 years for us to end up in the predicament we're in. It's probably going to take that time or longer to get out of the predicament. But you got to start somewhere."

We have no quarrel with the bishops about their right and duty to oppose evil. We have different views on what is evil. The bishops are looking at the last 40 years and seeing a decline, a predicament we have got ourselves into. We are looking at the last 400+ years and seeing that growing predicament—one the Catholic Church has helped to create. The predicament is a culture of domination of nature, forced ideology, denial of the feminine. The Soul Conference, focusing on human zest for life, the evolutionary humanization of sex and the loving care of children, each other, and creation, inspired a trust in humans to listen to the God within, to live with rather than in domination of nature.

The evils the bishops see are real: increasing failures of marriage, break down of family, dysfunction, addiction. Are these caused by gays and lesbians wanting to get married? Are they caused by gays and lesbians wanting equal civil rights? Are these desires of gays and lesbians part of the evil scene at all?

We believe same-sex marriage equality is a good thing—long overdue for the flourishing of citizens with same gender sexual orientation and for the flourishing of our society. It is one of the ways out of our evil predicament—along with equality and inclusion of many other kinds.

The view from the East side of town is a vision about God immanent in creation and leading its evolution toward union with Spirit. The world is a good place. It is a very Catholic view.

What is “Marriage Itself”?

By Paula Ruddy


The Minnesota Roman Catholic bishops are playing fast and loose with reason in their statement opposing Catholics for Marriage Equality MN. The bishops’ press release is quoted in the Catholic Spirit of September 29.

The bishops: Be afraid. Change makes the sky fall. If the State allows same-gender civil marriage, “marriage itself” will be undermined. The bishops lead with the fear card.

The person desperately seeking reason: What is “marriage itself”? Are the bishops telling me there is an essence labeled “marriage” existing somewhere and all actual marriages should be patterned on it? Or have they taken an idea of marriage from the many conceptions that humans have constructed over the centuries, called it “marriage itself” and attributed it to Jesus. Are they saying that if I want to be a member of the Catholic Church I must never question that construction or think about any other?

As a person living in the post-modern Western culture, I have learned to find the meaning of words like “marriage” in looking at actual marriages. If I try to construct an idea of what marriage is that way, I find there is no such thing as “marriage itself.” There are many kinds of marriages. There are different marriage laws the world over. There are actually gays and lesbians who are in permanent mutually caring relationships and caring for children just like heterosexuals. Wow, the bishops are sure confusing me.

If the bishops mean that “marriage itself” is the Church’s conception of sacramental marriage, why should it be undermined if the civil law of marriage changes? Hasn’t the Roman Catholic Church lived for many generations in the U.S. with the distinction between civil marriage, according to State law, and sacramental marriage, according to the law of the Church? If Catholics are well-taught by the bishops and value the Church’s conception of sacramental marriage, why would civil laws allowing same-gender marriage undermine their values?

But that is precisely the problem. Catholics are not listening to the Church’s teaching. The bishops see that U.S. Catholics increasingly value equality, freedom, and democracy in governance, which are not part of Roman Catholic culture. They see that Catholics have stopped valuing Church teaching on co-habitation, contraception, divorce, same-gender marriage, and even abortion, influenced by the thinking of mainstream civil society.

I do not doubt that the Minnesota bishops want a morally good and stable society in this state. But their strategy to accomplish it is misguided. Instead of trusting all people of the state, including Catholics, to want the same morally good and stable society they want, they say stuff like this:

It is the responsibility of the bishops in communion with the pope to uphold the truth as well as encourage and support all Catholics who are trying to live their baptismal promise of believing and trusting in our one, Catholic and apostolic faith. This is especially true in the area of marriage and sexuality, where the universal moral law and Gospel values are constantly under attack in American law and culture.

Good grief. Because they have failed in their responsibility to protect Catholics from the values of U.S. “law and culture,” the bishops now want the people of Minnesota to amend their state constitution to enforce the bishops’ views to help them keep the flock in check.

It would be so much more helpful if the Minnesota bishops first of all realized that truth is discovered by taking the life world seriously. The love of truth requires some humility and modesty. Can we alone have it? How do we arrive at it? The bishops would then speak to the people, inquiring of them what they experience and what they think, reasoning with them within the frame of reference of twenty-first century reflective adults. That is what Catholics for Marriage Equality MN is asking of them.

The Minnesota bishops could watch the video newly produced by Catholics for Marriage Equality MN, the trailer of which can be viewed here. On the video they will see adult, permanent gay and lesbian partners and parents of gays and lesbians talk about their experience of faith and their relationship to the Roman Catholic Church. They will hear about the harm the Church’s insistence on its position causes. Then they should respond feelingly and reasonably. And let the Holy Spirit do the work.


Related Off-site Links:
Local Catholics Premier Video Series on Faith, Family and Marriage – The Wild Reed (September 26, 2011).
Archdiocese Says Marriage Equality Group That "Seeks to Confuse Catholics" Must Be Avoided – Andy Birkey (Minnesota Independent, September 30, 2011).
New Video Adds to Gay Marriage Debate Among Catholics – Lauren Radomski (KSTP, September 29, 2011).

Image: Michael Bayly.

Big Deal or No Big Deal?

By Paula Ruddy
Catholic Coalition for Church Reform


Something happened this past weekend, not a big deal on a global scale of injustices, but it got to me. This is what happened:

Back in June, a group of parishioners from a lovely suburban Catholic parish invited CCCR to facilitate a Listening Session at one of their bimonthly meetings, an August Saturday morning adult gathering. People deeply concerned with being the Church in the world. Committed people, well educated and reflective people.

CCCR readily agreed. Four Listening Session facilitators met with the group’s planner, had a conversation with one of the liaisons to staff, cleared calendars, printed handouts, got ready. This was a great opportunity to hear what these people, committed to living the life of the spirit, were thinking. It was an opportunity to plan with them for responsible action in our local church — for its mission and survival.

You guessed it. The call came on Wednesday before the Saturday gathering. The parish told its members they could not hold the meeting in the church building. The group meets there regularly but on this occasion they were not welcome in their own church. You know the hassle that then ensued — between work schedules, emailing and calling people, trying to get the sense of what the group wanted to do, trying to make a respectful decision. Bottom line -- the group decided to cancel.

CCCR respects the group’s decision. They are free and responsible adults following their consciences. They too may be disappointed and saddened by the action of their parish. We empathize with that. They don’t want to jeopardize the possibility of meeting on their own church property in the future.

Who made the decision for the parish to put the kibosh on this meeting and why? Was it the pastor? He is reportedly out of town. A staff member? Yes, it was reportedly a staff member, citing the technicality that the group had not reserved one of the available rooms as well as Archdiocesan disapproval of CCCR.

And why is CCCR non-grata? We want to discuss the “magisterial teachings” of the Church.

This is a tiny incident. I hear people responding: No big deal. Get over it! Coalition members have been shut out of church property for years — CTA, CPCSM, Dignity, Roman Catholic Womenpriests, anyone who asks a question. You should have expected it, should have moved the meeting elsewhere in the first place. Don’t make a fuss about it for such a small number of people. The parishioners have to pick their battles. We have to be strategic. That wouldn’t happen in my parish, thank God!

Okay, I can get over it, but is it really no big deal? Institutional support for the human need to question, to think, to understand and make sense of the world and our mission in it is an absolute necessity, not a luxury. If you are lucky, you may get this need met in your parish, but it is starved in our local church, the Archdiocese. It is a need particularly strong in young people and in the Vatican II generation. The church may be able to survive the dwindling and death of the old folks who were awakened by Vatican II, but can it survive the departure of the young who get no support for their awakening minds? Authoritative fiats from the “magisterium” do not satisfy the questioning mind.

CCCR calls for pastoral leadership at the archdiocesan level for the sake of the Church’s mission, leadership that cares for human needs. We need a robust culture of reflective, imaginative, nuanced moral reasoning. I suppose that is, inevitably, threatening. But we are on minimal life support here, and it is a very big deal.

We can’t wait around for the Archbishop’s approval. The Council of the Baptized, to be launched at Synod 2011 on September 17, is our attempt to provide for ourselves a unified, reflective and deliberative discernment of the sense of the faithful in our local church. Come and help. Go to www.cccrmn.org.

Twin Cities-Based Coalition for Church Reform Has High Hopes

By Zoe Ryan


Editor's Note: This article was first published in the July 5, 2011 issue of The National Catholic Reporter.


ST. PAUL, MINN. – Some 2,000 people gathered in Detroit June 10 for the American Catholic Council to attend discussions surrounding current issues in the church. Among them was Paula Ruddy, who said the spirit of hope in the people was inspiring.

Ruddy isn’t a person who needs inspiration from other lay Catholics just for the nice feeling it gives her. She leads a lay organization in Minnesota. Like the American Catholic Council, it calls for more discussions in the church and more involvement from the laity in those discussions. Unlike the council, Ruddy’s group wants to become a permanent, official organization in its archdiocese one day.

So far, the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese hasn’t bought into the reform group’s agenda -- last year the archdiocese warned people to stay away from the group’s study sessions and convention and this year the archbishop called them a threat to church unity – but Ruddy remains hopeful.

Ruddy helped found the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform in the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese because, she said, “there’s a lot of wonderful stuff going on in our archdiocese” but the laity of the archdiocese are not really pulled together as one core unit.

The coalition wants to strengthen the laity in the archdiocese and eventually create a “council of the baptized.” Ruddy said that she does not know of any other group like it in any diocese in the United States.

“We want to make policies, practices, church administrative structures that will serve the Gospel message and we need to hear from the people in order to do that,” Ruddy said.

As one of its guiding themes, the group uses a description attributed to Pope Pius XI: “The church, the mystical body of Christ, has become a monstrosity. The head is very large, but the body is shrunken.”

The “shrunken” body of the church – the laity – has to develop its own organizational strength, Ruddy said. That’s where the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform comes into play.

“We found that people were really concerned about a lot of ... issues and also feeling that they had no place to talk,” said Eileen Rodel, co-chair of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform. People can speak about those issues -- such as equality for women and sexual minorities – at listening sessions the coalition hosts.

In putting together their vision, the organization’s founders had to come up with a very specific understanding of what they mean by church, said Bernie Rodel, another coalition co-chair. They modeled their understanding of church after the Asian bishops’ model, he said.

“The church, in their understanding, is really a communion of communities that’s based upon acceptance,” Bernie Rodel said. The other qualities for church the Asian bishops outlined, he said, were equality, participation, dialogue and prophecy.

The coalition started in 2009 after a few Catholics noticed that there were many reform groups in Minnesota working on different things and wanted them to band together.

Eight groups are members: Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, Call to Action-Minnesota, Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, CORPUS, Dignity Twin Cities, Minnesota St. Joan’s Community, the Progressive Catholic Voice and Roman Catholic Womenpriests.

The coalition is a nonprofit Minnesota corporation and does not have a voting membership. It is run by a board of directors.

In April 2010, the coalition started work-study groups that explored any disconnect they saw between church practice and the Gospel message. The work-study groups looked at topics such as Catholic identity, Catholic spirituality and social justice. [Note: CCCR's work/study groups actually started in May 2009.]

The object of 2010 was to get action teams started to build networks and relationships with the community, and also to find out what people were “thinking and wanting,” Ruddy said. Listening sessions provided an outlet for the latter.

The groups also planned the Synod of the Baptized, where an action plan and listening sessions could begin.

According to Ruddy, 500 registrants gathered at the Synod of the Baptized in September 2010. The coalition hopes to have 1,000 at this year’s synod, planned for Sept. 17, she said.

This year’s synod will launch the Council of the Baptized, which will be different from the coalition, Ruddy said.

The council will be the “spokesperson” for the people and will be a “lay organization to discern and to communicate the sense of the faithful and to invite partnership with the official archdiocesan leadership in working for the mission of the church,” according to Ruddy.

Council members will be nominated by lay Catholics in the St. Paul-Minneapolis area who attend the synod or are supportive of the coalition. Nominees who agree to the responsibilities will then meet and each will nominate three people among themselves. From that pool of nominees, 16 people will eventually be chosen by the coalition board members, as well as five others who will be members-at-large.

The coalition invited Archbishop John C. Nienstedt to join its process, but he declined the invitation. In a June 8 letter to the group, Nienstedt noted that by canon law only a diocesan bishop can convoke a diocesan synod and that the coalition does not have his permission to hold a diocesan synod. He called the coalition’s organizing “an affront to the hierarchical ordering of the church ... and a threat to her unity.”

Nienstadt asked the group to cancel its plans “since nothing positive will be gained by such a meeting. Should you persist in your planning, I ask you to be honest enough to drop the word ‘Catholic’ from your organizational title.”

Ruddy said the invitation to Nienstedt still stands and the group wants to engage him in dialogue.

As for the future of the group, Ruddy said she thinks it’s going to be a constantly evolving idea. But the laity always will be the core.

“The sense of the faithful comes from listening to people,” Ruddy said.


Zoe Ryan is an NCR intern.

Community Ethics vs. Individual Freedom: The Fox and the Hedgehog

Noodling About Value
in Honor of Pride Weekend

By Paula Ruddy

Minnesotans are right in the middle of one of the central disputes of history: How are individual freedom and governmental restrictions of freedom supposed to work together? Is a State Constitutional amendment that limits the freedom of gays and lesbians to marry morally justified?

We can take a position that sounds good and stick with it. Some insist, “The community has a right to say what kind of society we want to live in and what kind of laws help us bring up our children according to our ideas of a good life.” Others insist in response, “What about the rights of individuals to marry the person they choose? It’s only fair that same-sex couples have the same freedom that heterosexual couples have.”

We can have a tug of war between these two positions, majority win, or we can do some heavy-duty reasoning to see what the soundest arguments are. Can we start by agreeing that it is better to have social policy grounded in principle and the soundest available arguments (if and when we can manage it) than to have social policy tugged back and forth between entrenched non-debatable positions?

I’ll grant that many times the tug of war is all we are capable of, but I can’t grant that it is the better way to go.

Ronald Dworkin in his 2011 book Justice for Hedgehogs provides some heavy-duty reasoning to help us out. For the title he relies on a line by Archilochus, Greek poet, made famous by Isaiah Berlin: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” I take the poet to mean that the fox sees the world at ground level, in concrete particulars, full of conflicting diversity, but the hedgehog digs under the surface and, looking up, sees things as interrelated and coherent. In the context of values, the fox sees conflict between freedom and law, and conflicting emphases on different values. The hedgehog sees that starting with one deep value, the world of value coheres, fans out in interrelated systems.

How does the hedgehog resolve the conflict of apparently competing community and individual values?

The first move is to distinguish those two goals: the individual goal of constructing a good life (called “ethics”) and the communal goal of treating each other justly (called “morality”). The individual is responsible for her/his own ethical life course, to pursue what s/he believes to be good. Of course values, or ideas of the good, are formed in a community, or multiple overlapping communities as is the case in our internet age of cultural interaction. But the ultimate responsibility is in the individual to form his/her conscience and to live by it. And then together, we have the moral task of making laws that restrain some freedoms in order to prevent harm to others . From the hedgehog’s viewpoint, these two goals are not in conflict or competition; they work together.

We get into conflict and competition when we say that freedom and equality and community are the values underlying our ethical and moral decision-making. If freedom is a good, an end in itself, then the community’s attempts to restrain it are problematic. If community is an end in itself, there is no way for an individual to choose other than the community’s norms. If freedom and community are ends in themselves, people can’t agree on which of those values to choose in a particular instance. The dispute is whether the individual’s freedom is more important than the community’s interest in restricting that freedom.

Hedgehog digs down and asks, “Are freedom and equality and community the values themselves or isn’t there, rather, a deeper value underlying those concepts? Are they criteria for deciding what is good or aren’t they, rather, interpretive concepts describing means to a deeper end?” Dworkin goes with the hedgehog’s insight.

The deeper values are two and interrelated: first, the dignity of each individual human as worthy of concern and, second, his/her personal responsibility to choose a good course of life. If we accept these two interlocked values as criteria, we ask how they are supported by our own decisions for our own life course and by governmental decisions about how we live together. The first question about our personal life course is an ethical question. When do we as a self-governing society justly restrict people’s freedom and when is restriction of freedom unjust? That is the moral question.

Another necessary distinction: Dworkin uses the word “freedom” for the total field of a person’s choices, and the word “liberty” for those choices that fundamentally determine his/her course of a life directed to the good. It is not an indignity to the individual for the society governing itself to restrict some of his/her freedoms—traffic laws, taxation, all the myriad licensing, for examples. But it is an indignity to restrict liberty, to reach into the domain for which the individual is fundamentally ethically responsible—choice of religion, judgments about ideas, decisions to speak, choice of life partner. The individual’s dignity both as a person worthy of concern and responsible for his/her own life choices is the unifying value and that value is the criteria both for our ethical choices and for judging when a governmental action is moral.

The only way we come to agreement on what laws support or undermine the value is through reasoned argumentation.

Question: Is the choice of an intimate life partner one of those choices for which the individual is ultimately responsible to create a good life? If yes, it is one of the fundamental liberties that a morally just society will not restrict without seriously good reason. What are the seriously good reasons to restrict gays and lesbians from the benefits of the laws of civil marriage?

Question: Is it a good reason that the majority community wants their ethical norm to be law for everyone? That would make it easier for them to form their children in their ethical code, but does that justify violating the dignity of persons who have the responsibility to make their own life choices? Is there a cogent argument that it is justified?

Question: Is it morally just for law makers to allow one community to impose its ethics on all other individuals by law? Is there a cogent argument that it is just? I take the decision of the majority of New York legislators on June 24, 2011, to have answered these questions in the negative.

There is a lot to think about in Dworkin’s book and I have not done it justice. Go here for more comments by Dworkin on his work. And if you think I have misinterpreted him, give us your reading.

You are invited to join in this argument that has been evolving for centuries.