In the shadow of Vatican I: the , homosexuality and change in the Church

In a Church that is more and more globally diverse, what kind of Church should a think with? Massimo Faggioli United States January 28, 2019

Pope Francis at the Vatican, Dec.21, 2018. (Photo by Filippo Monteforte/AP)

Pope Francis recently met with the of Central America while in Panama for . And during the Jan. 24 gathering he spoke to them about St. Oscar Romero and one of the main themes permeating the thought of St. — Sentire cum Ecclesia, thinking with the Church. A prominent feature two days later at the WYD evening prayer vigil was Romero's miter, emblazoned with his episcopal motto, "Sentir con la iglesia." The motto is a key theme in the current pontificate.

But what does it mean "to think with the Church" during the difficult process of globalization? In a Church that is more and more globally diverse, what kind of Church should a Catholic think with?

It's a question that Catholic journalist Andrew Sullivan raised in a recent article on gay priests.

Even though Pope Francis is not the focus of Sullivan's piece, this long article (it's a must-read!) accurately captured the situation the pope is facing: the increasing awareness of a significant number of homosexuals in the priesthood (especially in the Western hemisphere) in a that officially teaches that homosexuality is an "inclination, which is objectively disordered" (Catechism, 2358).

Francis made headlines early in his pontificate when he famously said, "Who am I to judge?" after being asked about a gay priest. But the pope has not changed the Catechism nor the Vatican's guidelines concerning homosexuals and the seminary.

"The Church urges that persons with this rooted tendency not be accepted into (priestly) ministry or consecrated life," he said in a book-length interview published at the end of 2018. "It is better that they leave the priesthood or the consecrated life rather than live a double life," he warned.

Now, it's true that the 82-year-old pope makes a clear distinction between being homosexual and observing celibacy and chastity that is required of all priests and religious.

But Sullivan is right when he writes that "the massive cognitive dissonance this requires is becoming harder to sustain." There is certainly a significant amount of dissonance today between the Church's official teaching and its lived experience regarding this issue. But there is another problem at this particular moment: the role of the of as teacher in the Church. What role does the pope play in theological and magisterial change?

Most Catholics across the entire spectrum, from radical-progressive to traditionalist-conservative, still have a conception of papal ministry based on the teachings of the First Vatican Council (1869-70) rather than on those of the (1962-65).

Their understanding is that the pope makes the tradition of the Church rather interprets the way the Church is making the tradition.

Francis follows two , John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who each had a theological and magisterial profile that was more similar to a statue on a pedestal than to a bas-relief.

This was not only because of the way Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger interpreted the role of the Bishop of Rome. It was also due to the fact that Vatican II has not completely superseded Vatican I when it comes to the expectations that Catholics have of the papacy.

It is instructive to see where Vatican II quotes Vatican I. — the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation — cites the earlier council only once. But Lumen Gentium — the dogmatic constitution on the Church — references Vatican I eight times.

Four of these are in the third chapter of that text, which deals with the institutional relationship between the papacy and episcopacy and very carefully stresses the pope's primacy.

The reception of Vatican II did much to disabuse Catholics from what Pius IX (pope from 1846-78) said about the papacy – "I am the tradition." But at the same time, the Church today still lives in the shadow of Vatican I.

That is clear from the way most Catholics across the spectrum — especially in countries where the Church is ideologically divided — expect the pope to either make theological and magisterial changes or defend teachings by his predecessors.

The demand for an "activist papacy," in which the pope is expected to play an authoritative and decisive role in steering the Church towards a particular route, is something rather recent.

It is a development that has come with the growth of modern papacy in the second millennium and especially in the last 150 years.

If it is true that the Church is returning to the state of being a minority, similar to the early centuries, then it is also possible that the function of the papacy could go back to the polycentric of those earlier times.

The belief that the pope can open a new page in the tradition of the Church almost by fiat is at odds with "sentire cum Ecclesia."

It could be especially problematic in the post-Francis Church, if those with a dangerously revanchist view of the papacy were to gain prominence. But such a belief is also problematic in its very essence because it does not correspond to the Church as a communion.

We have seen this in these last six years. On some issues Francis has developed Church teaching in ways that have not always, and have not yet, produced change in the Code of Law or in the Catechism.

But whenever Francis has moved the needle of the Church on some issues, these changes have produced a significant pushback coming from traditionalist and conservative circles.

Two examples immediately come to mind — developments in Amoris Laetitia on the teaching surrounding marriage and family and, more recently, changes in the Catechism on the Church's position regarding the death penalty.

In both cases, Francis was much less the producer of change than the interpreter of a change in the Church's ongoing theological reflection, magisterial pronouncements and pastoral life. By such moves, Francis has unsettled those believers who have an ideological notion of the Catholic faith as being conservative by default.

But there is also a disquiet in areas of the global Church that cannot simply be associated with an ideologization of Catholicism that is more typical of the Western hemisphere. This tends to be particularly true for the issue of homosexuality in the Church.

The Catholic Church has always been slow in changing, but now this process is getting more complicated because of the massive changes in the size of the Church and in the depth of the rifts: what we call global Catholicism is not just an enlargement of boundaries but also a deepening of divisions.

Global Catholicism means many things. It also means there is a different way to be pope, even as compared just to a few years ago.

Francis is clearly aware of this when at the beginning of Amoris Laetitia he writes that "not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the ."

"Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it," he notes.

But global Catholicism also implies a different way for Catholics to relate to Church leadership and especially to the papacy.

This is the case with the issue of homosexuality where "thinking with the Church" is the only way to find a Catholic solution to the gap between official teaching and experience, between Catholics of different areas of the world, and between Catholics of different generations.

Yves Congar, one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, believed deeply in the necessity of delays and of intermediate steps for the development of Church teaching. Ideas develop over time and delays are necessary. Congar believed that enacting reform in the Church requires a wise hermeneutic of the past because "reforms have an aspect of judgment and condemnation bearing upon history and its insufficiencies."

A reform of Catholic teaching on homosexuality implies an aspect of judgment on the way the Church has dealt with this issue in the past. In the global Catholic community, there are very different understandings of what is the past and what is the future in the teaching of the Church about homosexuality.

But on this issue, there are few doubts that we are witnessing the beginning of a new era in the Church. And even though we sometimes fear — or seek comfort in — the long shadow of Vatican I, it is clear to all that with Francis we are now no longer in that same kind of papacy.

Follow me on Twitter @MassimoFaggioli