Whenever I see references to “church teaching” on homosexuality, I get uncomfortable. Which part of teaching should we be including, here? Is only the specific aspect of sexual ethics of relevance? Or do we also include teaching on conscience and on justice and inclusion, as they apply to persons of homoerotic orientation?
Recently, I have been asking myself more fundamental questions, ever since I came across an article by Sr Jeanine Grammick for Call to Action, (carried by Michael Bayley at The Wild Reed), which was headlined, “Who Speaks For The Catholic Church?” Musing on this question, I found myself asking, what exactly do we mean by “church” teaching? Does it even exist? It is generally agreed that “the church” is far more than just the Vatican, or collection of bishops, but includes every single one of us. What is usually described as “church teaching” is in fact a body of doctrine formulated and promoted by that bishops’ collective, and particularly by its elite sub-set based in the Vatican. It is claimed, of course, that they are the only group empowered to take these decision on doctrine- but who says so? Who has given them that sole authority? Why – they have. Pursuing that line of thinking, I wonder: is there any body of doctrine, anything at all, that can truly be said to represent the teaching of “the church”, that is the whole church, and not just of the Vatican?
Sr Jeannine Gramick, in Rome for the Italian publication of her book
Of course, things are not quite as bad as that, and there is such a thing as “church teaching”. At a minimum. there is the creed which we say together as part of the Mass. As we all say it and assent to it, that can certainly be accepted. There is more, as Sr Grammick reminds us.
If we truly believe that God’s Spirit speaks through the Church, i.e., the community, then the whole community needs to hear what the Spirit is saying to individuals within the community.
Theologians need to take the community’s experiential data, reflect on it, explain the belief residing in it, and show how this belief is, or is not, a development of the Christian tradition. When a sufficient consensus emerges around a particular opinion, Church leaders need to teach or articulate this conviction as the faith of the People of God. For most issues, not just those regarding sexuality, this data gathering, reflection, elucidation, articulation and teaching of belief takes centuries.
We know there are many issues where this consensus has emerged. Sr Grammick continues by arguing that on matters of homosexuality, it has not, and that Cardinal George’s diatribes against New Ways Ministry cannot be said to be based on “church” teaching, which does not yet truly exist on the subject. She is right, but here I do not wish to go deeper into sexual ethics. Nor do I want to attempt to enumerate all those things where we can agree there is consensus, and which can truly be described as church teaching, but surely exist. My concern today is with the wider issue of language.
When the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform held a planning workshop last October for the Minneapolis Synod of the Baptised, the speakers Dr. Lois Yellowthunder and Dr. Glenda Eoyang warned about the dangers inherent in careless use of words:
Glenda and Lois talked about the power of language to influence change. Negative words can make us feel powerless, diminished, hopeless, decreasing our power to interact. Positive, affirming words build us up and give us a sense of our own power to choose our path. Using words that describe imbalances of power can diminish a person’s view of his/her place in the scheme of things. For example, the phrase “the hierarchy” puts the people referred to in a superior category within the system. A person with the leadership role might be called bishop but “the hierarchy” sets him apart and creates classes of membership. What does the word “magisterium” mean? Is everyone infused with the Holy Spirit within it? We can re-think our language to reflect an egalitarian balance of power.
Now, I find myself engaged with applying the same principle to “church teaching” , but that I think is a much easier task . “Vatican“teaching precisely describes, far more accurately, what is loosely called “church” teaching. A simple example will strikingly illustrate the difference.
Vatican teaching, as enshrined in Humanae Vitae and other documents, states clearly that artificial contraception is sinful. Church teaching, as demonstrated by the daily conduct of the overwhelming majority of Catholic couples, and the guidance given by most confessors and spiritual directors, is that it is not.
The distinction between Vatican teaching and Church teaching is an important one, which I will in future attempt to keep to carefully.
(For her important discussion of why Vatican teaching on homosexuality can not be taken as church teaching, read Sr Grammick;s article at the Wild Reed.)
