We Are the Church



James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.

(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)



The track record of Catholics on the left demands that we be wary of what they say. It is hard to overlook how many liberation theologians and proponents of the “spirit of Vatican II” left the Church when forced to choose between their ideological enthusiasms and Rome.

So I think it reasonable for us to be suspicious of those who place great stress on the notion that we hear so much about these days: that “we are the Church,” the “people of God.” Maybe I will have to eat crow on this one, but I am willing to bet the ranch that the day will come when it will be clear that this theme is a ploy, a wedge used to advance the liberal agenda by weakening the authority of Rome.

The Oct. 28 issue of the Jesuits’ America magazine is a case in point. Fr. Thomas P. Sweetser, S.J. makes the case that the recent sex scandals are “an invitation to change the way the church operates. Ordinary and common people are experiencing a new vision of church, one that challenges a small cadre of decision-makers unaccountable for their actions.” He writes of “listening sessions” he attended, conducted by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One “was in a parish hall packed with faith-filled Catholics” who “were knocking at the door of the hierarchical structure demanding accountability and reform.” He concludes that the “church is undergoing a shift in awareness and vision not unlike that experienced by Peter, the first pope.” “The images of the clergy on pedestals are toppling. Those who stood on them are now tainted with suspicion. No longer is trust given freely to those in authority.”

As a result, says Sweetser, “new structures of review and accountability are being put into place. Broad-based committees of lay men and women are reviewing past and present cases of sexual abuse and are making recommendations to those in charge. They are given authority and credibility, power and prestige – a new phenomenon for governance in the church.”

And Sweetser sees these calls for change as healthy, as a way for “qualified people to become co-leaders with the bishop, people who function not behind the scenes but up front and visible for all to see,” to “shift from one person being in charge to shared leadership.” He holds that a “new way of acting is demanded of the church as a whole. Peter had his awareness greatly expanded when he entered Cornelius’s home. The same is needed today. The view, for instance, that the church can be run only by an all male, celibate clergy is no longer credible.”

Sweetser understands that what he is calling for “will probably have to come from an ecumenical council, a gathering similar to the Second Vatican Council.” But he is confident that the changes he wants will come, because “change is in the air; the Spirit is falling on all who hear the word (Acts 10:44). Unfortunate as the recent tragic events have been, the people are catching on that they are the church. It is hoped that church authorities will ‘get it’ as well and respond appropriately.”



And what is so wrong with this line of thinking? Faithful Catholics are also angered and disappointed by the way the American bishops have dealt with the sex scandals. But it is seems fair to raise the question of whether those who are calling for “shared authority and mutual accountability” are motivated by more than the need to discipline sex-abusing priests and those in authority who covered up for them; to wonder out loud if they want a church with “shared authority” because such a church would permit the “reforms” they seek.

Such as? Such as changes in the Church’s teachings on birth control, divorce, women priests, abortion, and homosexuality. The neo-modernists have not been able to get Rome to budge on these issues. A Church with what Sweetser calls “qualified people” serving as “co-leaders with the bishop” would be more malleable. At least, those who seek changes in the Church’s teaching hope that is the case.

So, is it unfair to allege that this is the hidden agenda behind the call to give more authority to the “people of God”? I say no. Let’s test it. I say that those who tell us that “we are the Church” are not for a decentralization of authority and for greater input from the laity all the time. They would not want Church teachings to be shaped by opinion polls taken to register the voice of the average Catholic on issues such as capital punishment, illegal immigration, the authority of the United Nations, affirmative action programs and busing to achieve racial justice, United States nuclear policy and this country’s dealings with Fidel Castro and Marxist movements in Latin America.

They don’t care what the folks in the pews think about the Latin Mass. They don’t care what the “people of God” think about the architectural monstrosities they construct to replace the traditional churches in their dioceses. Then it is the opinion of the elites, the “experts” that matters.

In fact, it seems to me as they think the “people of God” reside in the theology departments of a handful of Catholic universities and the editorial staffs of a few, shall we say, “reform-minded” Catholic publications. In other words, they do not want a more democratic and open Church; they want one where they can shape the agenda to advance their favorite causes. When decentralization will do the trick, they are for that. When overriding the opinions of ordinary Catholics works better, they override without a second thought.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU