The American Catholic Church-- Part II by Larry Roegner

In October 2003, our own Anthony Padovano addressed the Call To Action convention in Milwaukee. His excellent thoughts, now titled "The American Catholic Church", were carried in the November-December issue CORPUS REPORTS of that year. For those of you without easy access to that article, I will summarize his thoughts and suggest where we go from here, the changes that must AGAIN occur in our Church if the current ugly impasse is to be broken.

Again.... because our lives are about change, and Padovano identifies three periods --- each a distinct change --- in the American experience of our Catholic Church. The first period, which he terms the American Phase, is from the birth of our nation: 1634 -1850. At that point, Pope Leo XIII determines that American concepts of Catholicism are out of line with Vatican concepts and we are clearly in the Roman Phase: 1850-1960. Finally, the entire Church including the American Catholic Church experiences the refreshing thoughts of Vatican II and a new era begins in the United States: the Catholic Phase. This last is still a work-in-progress, where "Rome has no choice except to move in an American direction..... rejecting the language of oppression.... it will carry the Catholic Church to reform and renewal."

So the subject of this article is about CHANGE as it applies to our American Catholic Church. And the very first requisite of change: there must be a clear vision of the future.... where we want to go. This existed in the American Phase; it was defined by our Declaration of Independence: "it affirmed God but not the churches, stressed the Enlightenment but not Tradition, and it underscored inclusivity as an operating principle of this new nation: 'all...are created equal'." With the tacit approval and support of Benjamin Franklin, the force behind this vision was John Carroll, first U.S. bishop who also established Georgetown as the first Catholic institution of higher learning.

In setting forth the details of this vision, change must commit to a set of values. Guided by John Carroll and in line with national democratic ideals, the American Catholic Church quickly developed these. Carroll allows English in the liturgy and he supports a strong voice for the laity in the American trustee system: " The laity nominates candidates as pastor and the bishop appoints " The bishop has limited rights to dismiss a pastor " Disputes are settled in an arbitration committee, half of whose members are lay.

Thus, John Carroll guided the American Catholic Church to..... " A substantial voice for the laity " The right of the clergy to choose their bishop " A sense of democracy is good for the Church " A written constitution for the clergy with a clear definition of authority and its limits " A preference for public debate and dialogue on Church issues " Ecumenism " A strong warning that foreign and papal interference will diminish the credibility of Church leaders.

The next great leader of the American Catholic Church to emerge was John England, bishop of Charleston, South Carolina. He researched and developed the written Constitution that John Carroll had called for, issued in 1823. As noted by William Powers in The Tarheel Catholic (p.149), Bishop England stated that the bishop is not the 'deputy of the Pope' any more than a State Governor is the "deputy of the President". Bishop England further added that "We are not required by our Faith to believe that the Pope is infallible."

Probably this powerful voice of American Catholicism went too far, for we are all familiar with Vatican I (1870) that stated unequivocally that the Pope is indeed infallible on matters of faith and morals. De Tocqueville suggests that American Catholics are "very sincere" but also "very submissive". Rome turned harshly against them, and the American Phase of the Catholic Church ended. From Leo XIII, two negative encyclical letters against the American Church. In Testem Benevolentiae (1899), the Pope found American Catholics " Too eagar to accommodate doctrine to modernity (change), Too willing to think and say whatever they wish and indeed to express these thoughts too readily in print (free speech) " Too individualistic and too willing to rely on the direct influence of the Spirit in their spiritual lives rather than following the "well-known path" laid out by the Church (conscience) " Too enamored of active and practical virtues, to the neglect of passive and contemplative values (pragmatism) " Too dismissive of vows and formal religious life (initiative)

The encyclical condemns these characteristics as "Americanism", a general tendency to suppose that the "Church in America" can be different from the rest of the world. Clearly, Rome held a very different vision, was committed to a very different set of values, but perhaps most important to our discussion of Change: the Vatican confronted those who resisted its vision. It did so by strong Papal encyclicals, and de Tocqueville was correct: American Catholics are submissive. This era of tight Roman control was to last more than 100 years, till Pope John XXIII opened the windows of Vatican II.

Padovano notes that Papal mishandling of the Church between Vatican I and Vatican II is "breath-taking in scope": political democracy and ecumenism, biblical studies and liturgy, religious liberty and world religions, Judaism and the Holocaust, definition of marriage and the acceptance of married clerics, theological freedom and the overwhelming vote of the Papal commission to approve birth control as a moral option in marriage (52-4). Padovano continues... in June of 1995, twelve American bishops (with the support of forty other bishops who endorsed but did not sign the document) listed fifteen (15) pastorally urgent issues which the episcopal conference (now USCCB) is frightened to discuss because of Vatican intimidation: **Presenting the minority position of Vatican II as though it were the majority **Ecumenical issues **Marital annulments **Appointment of bishops **The relationship of episcopal conferences in Rome **collegiality in the Church **the role of women and their ordination **the shortage of priests **the morale of priests **the ordination of married men **sexual ethics **contraception **homosexuality **abortion **pedophilia.

Long before the Boston Globe began its "Spotlight" expose in January 2002, some members of the hierarchy were already deeply concerned ---- twelve were sufficiently concerned and courageous to put their names in authorship of this damning document. Since the Globe's expose, activists and reformers have come out of their pews and church buildings to call for every form of change in the Church. So why are they accomplishing little??? As cited above, they are not without a certain silent sympathy in the American hierarchy.

.....in a word, lack of vision. Not unlike the abused spouse standing before the abuser, reformers keep calling for changes to the very hierarchy that created these deplorable conditions in the first place. Allow me an actual example. The parishioners of St. ABC parish have been asked by their bishop to submit recommendations on Mission and Ministry in his XYZ Diocese, specifically: a pending shortage of diocesan priests. The most eager and active convene three meetings for heavy discussion. Two months later they are ready to talk to their bishop: "The overwhelming obstacle that the laity sees in trying to move toward realistic solutions to the challenges of delivering effective and timely ministry is the current position the Church takes on priest celibacy, the exclusion of those who have left the priesthood, and the limited role of women in the faith community service." This, to the very prelate who has been appointed by Rome to see that none of the above changes happens.

It gets better! Their "recommendations" lead off with the following: "1. We wish to see more accountability by the Church hierarchy in recognizing, defining and devising a clear plan for dealing with all of the issues facing our faith community." Nobly said, but think about that for a moment. Our Church hierarchy, all the way from Vatican City to diocesan Chancery, has already provided all the accountability it intends to provide, has already recognized, defined and devised a clear plan for dealing with all of the issues facing our faith community. THEY have the clear vision; it is the activists who are calling for reform who do NOT. Instead, activists are calling on the very hierarchy that has abused them for generations to lead the way to change. Won't happen!!

The current call for reform by Catholic activists seems to focus on the priesthood: bring back the laicized priests, allow a married priesthood, ordain women. Dear friends, this is not CHANGE, and the hierarchy-in-place knows this. So they continue to ignore and stonewall all reform efforts that are not to their liking. In the example I cited above, their bishop replied:" If I come to your parish, I would have to go to every parish!" ....obviously NOT a commitment to the hard work of the people of St. ABC parish on the topic which the bishop originally sent to these good and concerned Catholics, i.e, how to prepare for the pending shortage of priests in XYZ Diocese. Yes indeed, THEY are still in charge! But perhaps John Carroll and John England were right after all.....

Larry resides in Marble, TX and would love to hear your comments. He can be reached at roegner@tstar.net