Signs of the Times: Compromises the American Catholic Might Make

“They can accept a Church that strives to be better than it actually is, so long as it is simply honest about that fact.”

The Roman Catholic Church is a world-wide community made up of people with widely varying backgrounds in education and culture. Yet it remains united under a single leader, the bishop of Rome, the one called ‘the pope.’ How can he be expected to hold together a Church made up of people of such widely diverse backgrounds?

The one and only tool the pope has is that of persuasion. Every other tool he uses today or has used in the past is illegitimate and unworkable; that of the power of the state, for example. The same holds true for any coercive power.

In what seems to this writer to be a desperate move, the Vatican sometimes Resorts to a form of coercion to compel its free and voluntary members to follow its dictates. It does so by insisting it is the one and only Church of Jesus Christ, and that its leader is unable to make a mistake in matters of faith and discipline. Neither claim can stand up before the examples of modern history. The Church, in its better moments, now sees itself as attempting to follow Jesus faithfully and not always succeeding, and its leader as sometime being wrong. And, none of this moves its members to abandon it or to be unduly critical. They can accept a Church that strives to be better than it actually is, so long as it is simply honest about that fact.

Given these facts, how can the pope hold the Church together. It seems to this writer he can do so only with the greatest difficulty, displaying the greatest understanding of his constituencies. The United States and the northern Western world, including Europe are in the forefront of modern states. But, they are so only  in the sense of exploring modern social forms of organization and contemporary tools. In other respects, they are, if anything, no further ahead of others, and perhaps in the rear of others. An example of this would be the degree of happiness acquired by their members.

Other areas where the Vatican and the United States have conflicting views are with reference to women. Women are, and always have been, of tremendous importance to the Church, which has bought into the male-dominated world almost totally. The end of the patriarchal age, which we are now witnessing, is one of the great turning points in human history.  Unfortunately, the Vatican is on the wrong side of this event. It refuses to acknowledge the full equality of women with men. This is a position that we understand, but believe to be totally wrong. It is a most vexing problem, but one wherein the Vatican cannot continue to be on the wrong side.

The leader of the Catholic Church must take all of this into account. He must  see where the world is headed, helping it to move in positive directions, while insisting on recognizing and honoring that which is truly human.

American Catholics would seem well advised to pursue their democratic political views forthrightly and consistently, and championing the full equality of women with men. These views are proving to be true in themselves and are being gradually assumed by most of the world. Church leaders will recognize the value of this position as it is embraced by most of the rest of the world. They will do so much more quickly if they are not pushed to do so by the powerful United States of America. That will require local bishops to stand up to the Vatican on this issue, assuming they believe in it.

In  most other matters, American Catholics can take a less adversarial position. They can do so honestly and with a proper degree of humility, swallowing their own preferences do the good of the whole community. It must be assumed that international church leaders are good and decent people, trying to do what is best for the entire human community.

The Roman Catholic Church has long recognized that there are two authorities to which  most people give allegiance; that of the Church and that of the State. The primary duty of the Church is to offer the individual meaning or purpose in life, while that of the State is to provide protection, security. Each authority has a number of other functions it performs for the individual person, but these are its primary functions.

Trouble most often ensues when either one tries to assume the function of the other,  or either one tries to make secondary functions its primary function. For example, the State claims jurisdiction over economic matters and not all citizens are
in agreement in this area, and the Church claims the same right for its official views on gender and sex and not all of its members are in accord with the official stand on this matter. It is not that there are no differences or difficulties regarding even the primary function of each group, there are such differences, but they seldom create the difficulties that differences over secondary jurisdictions cause.

On the whole, however, in the United States of America, citizens feel free to split loyalty although they may be members of both groups. Some citizens give priority to one or the other group, although most citizens feel no need to do so.

The history of the relationship between the two entities is long, difficult, and for the most part, interesting. The dual loyalties of most citizens of the United States of American is very real, but unusual today. In most parts of the world, either the State or the Church is not only dominant, but the only functioning reality.