Authoritarianism and Fear As Components of Dysfunction in Contemporary Catholicism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Authoritarianism and fear as components of dysfunction in contemporary Catholicism JJ Bishop 25360647 BA, MEd, MA Thesis submitted for the degree Doctor Philosophiae in Church Polity at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University Promoter: Prof Dr RB Grainger Co-Promoter: Prof Dr AIR du Plooy May 2016 ABSTRACT Authority is legitimate, constructive, and moral. “For there is no authority except from God” (Rom: 13.10). Authoritarianism, however, is illegitimate, destructive, and immoral, with fear being an insidious inherent component. Any organization which is controlled by a single person tends to become authoritarian. Through its laws and prohibitions an authoritarian regime inflicts psychological abuse on its followers in opposition to the words of Jesus: “Their rulers lord it over them . but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant” (Mark: 10.42-43). To what extent, if any, does the Roman Catholic Church demonstrate authoritarianism? This thesis will explore this possibility by considering secrecy, infallibility, democracy, dissidence, sexuality, homophobia, misogyny, clericalism, the sensus fidelium, and pedophilia in the Catholic Church. Finally, this thesis will suggest, also, possible solutions to any observed defects. KEY WORDS Authoritarianism, fear, sexuality, misogyny, homophobia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge first the invaluable assistance and advice offered me by my promoter, the Revd. Prof. Roger B. Grainger, whose untimely death was a great loss to the university community and to me personally. I wish to acknowledge, also, Prof Dries du Plooy, my co-promoter, who has attended tirelessly in assisting me in the development of this dissertation, and Dr. Stuart Rochester whose comprehensive analysis of my work has been a special help. I wish to thank Eleanor Evans and Tienie Buys, Liaison Administrators for their diligence in keeping me on the right track. Thanks to Fr. Allan Savage who helped me in broadening my theological perspectives. Thanks are owing to Dr. Chris Robbins who recommended a number of books and who edited one of the early versions of a section of this thesis. I thank Barb (Eccles) McIntosh for her unwavering help in attending to legal matters. Thanks to my colleagues Mary Pat MacDonald and Andrea Conway for their support in this endeavour and for their love and friendship. Thanks to my sister Rosaire whose love and prayers have sustained me during many endeavours. Thanks to my four children – Joe, Mari, Martin, and Carol – for their love, enthusiasm, and advice, both philosophical and technical. Finally I remember Joyce, my beloved wife who was called from this earth much too soon. It was her love and her encouragement which compelled me to embark on this project, and which has sustained me in this effort. May she look favourably on this work. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Background …………………………………………………………. 4 1.2 Problem Statement …………………………………………………………. 4 1.3 Research Questions …………………………………………………………. 5 1.4 Aim and Objectives …………………………………………………………. 6 1.5 Central Theoretical Argument ………………………………….. 6 1.6 Methodology ………………………………………………………… 6 1.7 Concept Clarification ……………………………………………. 7 2.0 The Nature of Authoritarianism ……………………. 13 2.1 Authoritarianism ………………………………………………………. 13 2.2 Dissidence …………………………………………………………………. 21 2.3 Church as Disciplinarian …………………………………………… 24 2.4 Exploitation ………………………………………………………. 31 2.5 Coercion …………………………………………………………………. 31 2.6 Manipulation ………………………………………………………. 32 2.7 Domination ………………………………………………………. 33 2.8 Infallible Truth ………………………………………………………. 37 2.9 Summation ………………………………………………………. 49 3.0 Authority by Default …………………………………………… 50 3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………. 50 3.2 Early Church vs the Contemporary Church …………………….. 50 3.3 Bishops’ Lack of Autonomy ………………………………… 54 3.4 Exploring a Metaphor …………………………………………… 57 3.5 Punishments and Rewards ……………………………….. 58 3.6 Clerical Exclusivity ………………………………………………………. 59 i 3.7 Disdain for a Saint ………………………………………………………… 60 3.8 Endemic Fear ………………………………………………………… 62 3.9 Escaping Authoritarianism …………………………………. 64 3.10 The Status Quo ……………………………………………………….. 66 3.11 Dissension ……………………………………………………….. 68 3.12 Papal Infallibility ……………………………………………………….. 71 3.13 Fear as a Weapon of Control ………………………………… 76 3.14 Justice …………………………………………………………………. 81 3.15 Summation …………………………………………………………………. 83 4.0 Misogyny ………………………………………………………………….. 85 4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………….. 85 4.2 Theocracies …………………………………………………………………… 85 4.3 Ordination vs Subordination …………………………………. 90 4.4 Misogyny …………………………………………………………………… 101 4.5 Women Religious ……………………………………………………….. 104 4.6 Fear of the Keepers of the Faith ………………………………… 109 4.7 Fear of Loss of Authority …………………………………………… 112 4.8 Fear …………………………………………………………………………….. 117 4.9 Summation …………………………………………………………………. 120 5.0 Sexuality …………………………………………………………………. 121 5.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………. 121 5.2 Fear of Sexuality ……………………………………………………….. 122 5.3 Gluttony and Lust ……………………………………………………….. 126 5.4 Procreation …………………………………………………………………… 128 5.5 Pre-marital Sex ………………………………………………………. 131 5.6 Contraception ………………………………………………………. 134 5.7 Masturbation ………………………………………………………. 140 ii 5.8 Augustine …………………………………………………………………. 143 5.9 Nudity …………………………………………………………………. 153 5.10 Celibacy …………………………………………………………………. 156 5.11 Summation …………………………………………………………………. 160 6.0 Homophobia ……………………………………………………… 161 6.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………. 161 6.2 Nature …………………………………………………………………. 162 6.3 Scripture …………………………………………………………………. 164 6.4 Homosexual Liaisons …………………………………………… 168 6.4.1 Jesus and John …………………………………………… 169 6.4.2 Ruth and Naomi …………………………………………… 170 6.4.3 David and Jonathan ……………………………….. 171 6.5 Early Christianity ………………………………………………………. 173 6.6 Sin …………………………………………………………………………….. 175 6.7 Aquinas …………………………………………………………………. 180 6.8 Church Attitude ………………………………………………………. 183 6.9 Summation ………………………………………………………. 191 7.0 Conclusion ……………………………………………………… 192 7.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………. 192 7.2 Expression of Authoritarianism ……………………………….. 192 7.3 Subsidiarity and Pyramidal Structure …………………….. 197 7.4 Authority by Default …………………………………………… 202 7.5 Sexuality …………………………………………………………………. 205 7.6 Homophobia ………………………………………………………. 208 7.7 Summation ………………………………………………………. 211 8.0 References ………………………………………………………. 214 iii 1.0 Introduction Any individual, whether in a political, social, educational, or religious organization, should be loyal to that institution but simultaneously must not be afraid to recognize and point out any flaws which become apparent in it. In the context of the Roman Catholic Church this is both true and apparent. This dissertation, while dealing specifically with the institution itself, must refer as well to the nature of the human organization within it. In doing so it does not intend to malign any individual but will point out at least in general terms, the mismanagement, the inefficiency, and the laws and directives which perpetuate the stagnation of this two-thousand-year-old institution. In doing so my motivation is always based on my love for the Church, and it does not preclude recognition for the many benefits and gifts bestowed by the Church on every member of the organization. Should any individual be acknowledged by name, it is merely to identify the problem or error but does not reflect on the morality of the individual. Authoritarianism with its inherent secrecy, fear, and micro- management must be addressed and prescriptions for renewal must be provided. The problem does not lie basically at the grassroots level; rather, it lies at the very pinnacle of power within the Church – in the Vatican, in the Curia, and within the hearts of the ultra-conservative members of the hierarchy who are committed to retaining power and authority and who place laws and restrictions above humility and love. Individuals throughout the history of the Church have acted in a manner not necessarily according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Garry Wills, in Papal Sin, speaks of Edgardo Mortara, an Italian Jew, who was baptized by a domestic when the boy was seriously ill. After his recovery, because he had been baptized, Pius IX had him taken from his family and raised as a Catholic in the Vatican (Wills, 2000: 40-41, citing Giacomo Martina, [Pio IX, 1851-1866], Miscellanea historiae ecclesiasticae in Pontifica universitae Gregoriana 51 [1986]). James Carroll in Constantine’s Sword (2001) refers to Pius XII, who failed to condemn publically the Nazi treatment of Jews during World War II. Carroll tells us in Practicing Catholic that although his supporters opposed this 1 view, Pope John XXIII refused to deny what he saw as truth (Carroll, 2001: 44-45). Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, the birth control encyclical, in spite of and contrary to the decision reached by the body he instructed to study the matter (Paul VI, 1968: 2; 5). John Paul II refused to consider the ordination of women (John Paul II, 1994: 2-3), and Benedict XVI instigated the demotion by John Paul II of the theologian, Hans Küng (Carroll, 2009: 247). In each case it is my intention to accept the decisions made by these men as though they acted according to their consciences and for what they considered the welfare of the Church. My disagreement with and disapproval of their actions is limited, then, to the actions taken and does not in any way reflect on their personal morality. Also, it is important to note here