The (Embryonic) Spreading Catholic Spring: Belgian Catholics issue reform manifesto

December 2, 2011 — Terence Weldon

Already this year, we have had a statement signed by German speaking theologians calling for fundamental reform of the Catholic Church’s culture of clericalism, and a fundamental reform on many details in church rules and teaching. Austrian priests, backed by lay Catholics, have made a well-publicized “Call to Disobedience”. The Irish clergy have formed a strong, reform-focussed association of priest. Now the Belgians have followed suit.

What strikes me about these countries in particular, is that they all figure among the European churches most affected by the stories of clerical sexual abuse. Catholics in the Netherlands have been relatively quiet this year – but Dutch Dominicans made a similar call, for lay Catholics to lead services in the absence of priests, back in 2007. (Expect a renewed call for reform, and even open rebellion, from them too, sometime soon).

St. Peter's Church in Leuven, Belgium

The Belgian reformers’ demands are similar to those from elsewhere:

Parish leadership be entrusted to trained laypeople;
Communion services be held even if no priest is available;
Laypeople be allowed to preach;
Divorced people be allowed to receive Communion;
“As quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood.

Empirical research shows that these ideas are supported by a clear majority of Catholics in many parts of the world. How long can the oligarchs resist (especially as many of them in fact agree with the ideas, but dare not say so publicly?)

Belgian Catholics issue reform manifesto

The week before the start of Advent, four Flemish priests issued a church reform manifesto that called for allowing the appointment of laypeople as parish pastors, liturgical leaders and preachers, and for the ordination of married men and women as priests.

By the week’s end more than 4,000 of publicly active Catholics had signed on to the “Believers Speak Out” manifesto. By Dec. 1, the number of signers had reached 6,000.

Among the supporters are hundreds of priests, educators, academics and professional Catholics. Two prominent supporters are former rectors of the Catholic University of Leuven, Roger Dillemans and Marc Vervenne.

“These are not ‘protest people.’ They are people of faith. They are raising their voices. They hope their bishops are listening,” said Fr. John Dekimpe, one of four priests who launched the manifesto.

“Some people are fearful about approaching church leadership,” said the priest, who lives in Kortrijk. “Is this being a dissident? I don’t think so. The Belgian church is a disaster. If we don’t do something, the exodus of those leaving the church will just never stop. … I really want the bishops to reflect deeply about the growing discontent of so many believers.”

full report at National Catholic Reporter.

“Occupy the Church”: Austria’s Catholic Rebellion Gathers Strength, (queeringthechurch.com)
In Austria Bishops Call For More Dialogue (Enlightened Catholicism)
Belgian Catholic reformers want laypeople to run parishes that have no priests (Reuters)

Share|

Posted in Catholic Church, Church Reform. Tags: Belgium, Catholic Church. RSS feed for comments on this post.. TrackBack URL.

Promotor Fidei

OK. Terence, you have got to articulate your stance on this one. Do you believe in transubstantiation? Do you believe in the sacerdotal power of the priesthood as transferred through the laying of the hands ceremony? (Also, It is critical that you respond in some capacity to this comment, as this too fundamental to be ignored. I understand that this is a large issue that may take some time for you to process and think about but I will ultimately need SOME type of response, even if it is just letting me know that you read the whole thing and that you are thinking about it. You can email me at promotorfidei (a t yahoo d o t com)
If you do, then you must speak up. If you do not, that is perfectly fine, I will continue to support your website (as I support all of my friends in all of their paths no matter what religion they are). However, if you do not, then you must relent your claim to the Catholic position, because ALL of the ancient churches (all of the orthodox churches, all of the oriental churches, the coptic church, the Assyrian church of the east, the ethiopian churches, and all 26 catholic churches) believe that the priesthood is a sacred office with a sacred power, of which the sacrament of communion is their single largest reason d’etre. If just anyone can validly consecrate the Eucharist, then there is no priesthood. The entire Church structure has no reason to be, and it then becomes local community social gatherings that naturally grow apart over time into very different religions. That is why Protestantism is incapable of preventing itself from perpetually splitting into smaller and smaller groups over time. The priesthood is the anchor of which the catholic/orthodox/etc churches are founded upon and is the SOLE reason why they can maintain a strong measure of uniformity and consistency across different cultures, nations, countries, and continents. I understand their concerns DEEPLY, however any Catholic who TRUELY understands their religion knows that non-ordained (lay) consecration of the eucharist is as invalid de facto. It ceases to be a sacrifice and become THEOLOGICALLY IDENTICAL to the protestant ‘community meal’ where they believe that communion is a commemorating meal not a sacrificial sacrament. This was the VERY issue that derailed the French Revolution (as I have mentioned before); the fact that it severs the church’s catholicity is as non-negotiable as the fact that the sky is blue or the laws of gravity. That is the cathlo-orthodox position “Stijn van den Bossche, secretary of the Interdiocesan Catechesis Commission, wrote in the Catholic weekly Tertio that parishioners could not celebrate their own Masses, “That is not only forbidden in the Catholic and Orthodox understanding, but also results in an invalid sacrament”. http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/12/02/belgian-catholic-reformers-want-laypeople-to-run-parishes-that-have-no-priests/ If someone does not like it, that is their full right to do so, and no judgment or ill will should be placed upon them. Sikhism is actually my favorite religion that I do not practice, and I hope to one day transform the church into a Christian from of Sikhism; their ultimate stance goes somethings like this, “Sikhism is just one way; yes, we may believe that it is the best way, but we do not try to convert people, because all religions assist people in their search for God. If someone wants to live our way and follow our traditions, we fully welcome them. However, if they find our way not to their liking, we fully support them in their search for a path and a tradition that suits them best. We do this because we understand that there is no such thing as muslim, hindu, sikhism, Indian, european, male, female, etc. These are all false divides that humans create in their minds, we are all the same. However, we also understand that humans need traditions and structures from which to organize their mind around. The outcomes of some traditions and structures may be more positive or negative than others, however not one is more valid or true than the other. ” Basically this means, that if someone does not like the traditions and theologies of one religion, they should change to one that suits them, and leave that tradition alone for those who’s spiritual level needs a structure like that. There are some ways in which the Catholic and Orthodox churches can change without destroying the structure and theologies of those traditions. However, there are also ways that it cannot change. I fully believe that the Church can change towards a Sikhist path without long term negative theological consequences, as I firmly feel that sikhism is what Christianity was SUPPOSED to be; as in, sikhism is the religion that Christ would follow if he were alive today. I also KNOW, however, that even if all the clergy and the Pope wanted to allow lay consecration of the Eucharist, they could not as it is a violation of the core theology of the religion, just as the President of the United States appointing senators would be a violation of the constitution; it simply is not possible. So in effect, asking for a solution that can not happen (one that any theological or even historical study of the church would reveal to be something that the church would be objectively REQUIRED to reject) is a result of poor education and huge oversight – one on scale with the French Revolution’s botched dealing with the church – on the part of the people in favor of it. THE ANSWER HOWEVER, can lie in one of several things: 1. Catholics start encouraging their sons and relatives to become priests, rather than thinking that vocations are some magical happening and that the priesthood is for ‘other people’; take charge in your own religion, but do so in COMPATIBLE ways, dont destroy the religion you claim to love over turning the foundation of the religion. 2. The Church allows a two tier priesthood, say a Presbyter is a celibate Priest who is eligible for the episcopacy and other things, and a Deaconate or Alcolyte is a priest who can marry and is more responsible for mass and local parish leadership. (obviously this method would require a lot of thinking through). 3. The Church allows for a sacred religious office (possibly married) that would take over the sacraments and duties of priests that are less dependent on the sacerdotal nature of the traditional priesthood (such as taking over sacraments like confessions, marriages, extreme unction, baptism etc, and leaving the priests to have more time to travel and focus on getting the eucharist out where it is needed 4. The Priests visit churches in the days before masses, consecrate the Eucharist, where it is then stored in sacred and safe keeping until mass where it can THEN be distributed by TRAINED lay people. Personally I think that all 4 solutions should be implemented, along with a healthy dose of sikhism. Also, I highly recommend that you read these scholarly and peer-reviewd sources for a better understanding of what I am talking about as far as the theological necessity of the priesthood for the validity of the sacraments, AND what happens when there are no priests. This is not the first time in history that this has happened. ALL of these are scholarly, famous, extremely well rated sources written by (SECULAR, and often not even catholic, so there is no pro-church bias) highly-acclaimed experts on the history, historiographies, events, causes, outcomes, and facts of these things:

McManners,
John. The French Revolution and the Church. Greenwood Press
Reprint (December 2, 1982).

Desan,
Suzan. Reclaiming the Sacred: Lay Religion and Popular Politics in
Revolutionary France. Cornell University Press; First Edition. 1991.

Crook,
Malcom. Citizen Bishops: Episocpal Elections in the French Revolution.
The historical Journal, 43, 4 (2000), pp.955-976. Cambrigdge
University Press.

2000.

Betros,
Gemma. The French Revolution and The Catholic Church. History Review,

Dec2010, Issue 68, p16-21, 6p

Greenbaum,
Louis S. Talleyrand and The Temporal Problems of The French Church

from 1780-1785. French Historical Studies; Spring63, Vol. 3 Issue 1, p41-71,

!!! Van Kley, “Christianity as Casualty and Chrysalis of
Modernity: The Problem of Dechristianization in the French Revolution”. (This article is one of the most important things someone can read on the catholic church; I am having trouble locating the exact journal/periodical it was printed in and the year but as soon as I do I will let you know). I have MANY others if you are left wanting to know more.

http://queeringthechurch.com Terence Weldon

I am sorry, PF, but I really do not accept that I have to do anything of the kind. I do read all comments, and at least aim to respond to them all (but often fall short). However, a lengthy essay falls outside my conception of a “comment”. While I respect that you have gone to a great deal of trouble to compose this, I too go to a great deal of trouble compose some of my posts: but I do not expect all of my readers to read every word that I write, or to follow every lengthy piece through to the end. If you want me to read a complete comment, please keep it short and to the point.

I also fail to see why you should demand that I explain my viewpoint on the matters you raise, simply because I have reported (reported, not endorsed) developments in Germany, Austria, and Belgium.

For the record, I endorse the principle that there is an urgent need for reform in the Catholic Church, on many issues. On some of the specifics demanded by these group, I agree: but so do a substantial proportion of professional theologians, and many highly respected and high ranking cardinals and bishops (including Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna, for instance).

On the particular issue that most troubles you, that of permitting lay persons to celebrate Mass in certain circumstances, I want to be cleat that I do not endorse these calls, but neither do I condemn them out of hand. I respect the value and importance of the ordained priesthood, and the value of a clear system and structure of leadership in the Church.

I wonder though, if it is right that in circumstances where there is no priest, there should be no Mass at all. On the relative merits of the argument, I pass no judgement. Of course I know the orthodox doctrine that only priests may say Mass, and the reasons for it – but I also note that people leading the reform movement and making the counterarguments are priests and learned theologians with far greater knowledge than I. I am not prepared to adjudicate between them, and withhold judgement.

Anonymous

This is just a brief response to a very complicated question. However, it is in just this area and regarding just this point that sacramental theology is rapidly evolving today, not without considerable controversy and pain. Part of that evolution is a return to sources and a critical examination of the actual practices of the early church and the historically conditioned development of sacramental theology itself, in which certain distortions may have occurred. It has now become clear through historical biblical scholarship that the early church made a distinction between choosing the actual member who would represent the community at a particular Eucharistic service and the role of ‘orders’ or leadership, which required a ‘laying on of hands.’ No theologian today is denying the validity and power of orders through the ‘laying on of hands,’ that charismatic gift of grace and vocation that is the call to true leadership within the church. What is being questioned -within the Catholic tradition (and call it Protestantism if you must) – is that this charismatic gift includes the exclusive ‘power’ to confect the Eucharist. It now seems clear that the early Church did not see things this way. Respected individuals were in fact chosen to ‘conduct’ the Eucharistic services, who had not in fact received the official ‘laying on of hands’ of official leadership, because the early church did not deem this necessary. Over time, however, partly through the psychological need on the part of (male) Church leaders to consolidate their power the two roles became conflated into one. There may have been a certain administrative sense to this, for the sake of order, but an important theological and sacramental distinction was lost. The official priest alone does not ‘confect’ the Eucharist (regardless of the charismatic grace he may have received through the sacrament of orders) the community does, and in the absence of an ‘official’ priest, equipped with the juridical permission to perform the Eucharist, the community may and should choose one of their own respected members. If need be, they may even ‘lay hands’ on the individual at that moment, to signify their choice. But there is no question that the power and grace of the Holy Spirit, which resides within the community itself, can not be limited and controlled through these juridical, quite humanly constructed restrictions. The Spirit moves where she will, even within a Eucharistic service that lacks a formally ordained minister. This was precisely the point made by the great Dutch theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx over forty years ago. Of course, he was accused of heresy and of neglecting and denying the mystery of the “Real Presence”. But all he was really doing, in my opinion, was returning us to the authentic practice of the early church.

http://queering-the-church.com/blog/ Terence Weldon

Thanks, Jayden. This is precisely why I chose not to respond to PF in detail – the issues and history are of a complexity and subtlety that go way beyond my personal understanding. The details of the debate I am happy to leave to those (like yourself) who have some specialist training.

What I do know, and believe needs emphasising, is that much of what is often presented as “essential” and “traditional” Catholic teaching is nothing of the sort. There has quite clearly been a concentration of absolute power in the hands of the Catholic clergy, and especially the bishops and papacy, that has nothing at all to do with the Christian message, but has been the result of those who acquired some clerical power early on, gradually using it to acquire more. This steady concentration of power reached its ideological apex in the nineteenth century with Vatican I, where so much that is now presented as “traditional” teaching originated. It reached its practical apex in the twentieth century, when technological advance permitted rapid communication between Rome and the global outreaches of the church everywhere.

Technological advance in turn, is now eroding that concentration, as the internet is enabling not just instant communication, but also the dissemination of knowledge and information. A vastly better informed, more theologically knowledgeable laity are no longer prepared to stand by and meekly submit to this myth that in all things, Rome knows best – not in the wake of the multiple clerical abuses that are now public knowledge, and not in an age of widespread secular democracy.

Promotor Fidei

Hi Terence, I apologize. I did not know that you were not involved in the deeper workings of such issues. If you would like, I can recommend some sources that you could study in your own time to get a better grasp of such things. I understand that a lot of people are not interested in or get frustrated with the how and why rather than the what of the issues of today; however, I do feel that it is crucial for everybody to learn as much as they can, because a lot of the information floating around on the internet is too superficial to be of benefit. In fact, learning a few details about a historical event or theological concept is often more misleading than not knowing anything about it at all. For example, I commonly hear about how when the pope received word of the extremely violent and horrible siege of Jerusalem in the 1st crusade, he reacted with immense praise; and so this is further evidence that the papacy is an evil oppressive satanic institution. Well, yes the siege was a massively shameful and horrendous event and yes the pope did not criticize the behavior of the crusaders, however and IN-DEPTH look reveals things that change everything. In class we analyzed several documents both from and to the pope and both from and after the siege. As it turns out the Pope had ordered the crusaders not to harm women and children, not to pillage and steal, no rape under any circumstances, and the only people that could be killed are armed people actively attacking you; as it also turns out, the letter that the pope received informing him about the taking of jerusalem was exceedingly brief and made it sound like it was a quick event with relatively little-bloodshed. The pope was then excited that Jerusalem had been taken in as humanly a way as possible. So, study reveals that not only did the pope not approve of the crusaders’ actions but he explicitly forbade them from such behavior, and that he received a near lie about the events that took place with no way to verify its truthfulness. So the pope cannot be blamed for either the actions of the crusaders or for his positive reaction to the event.

There is so much misinformation, poorly researched conclusions, and sometimes flat out lies that are ingrained in the pop-history of the church that I often find myself overwhelmed by the lack of understanding that catholics and non-catholics alike have about the church and its history. Three days ago I attended a faculty chat with 9 professors about one of their own research projects about some catholic fiction novels. In the first 10m of presentation the speaker mentioned that she was surprised that a priest would be in favor of ‘reason’, and the other faculty (all over 50 years old with doctorate level educations) started expressing similar surprise. While I had intended to just observe for the entire lecture fully expecting to learn something, I had become extremely frustrated by that point. I raised my hand and then spent the next 15m educating these 9 professors over the fact that catholic theology has always taught that faith and reason go together, and has always been deeply opposed to pure faith or pure reason. They were all blown away as if I had just told them that the president had been shot. While I can forgive 8 of the faculty for not knowing this (as they were not catholic), I was shocked that someone who is researching the nuances of catholic novels completely lacked even a cursory understanding of the CORE of the catholic world-view. Even though I had never read the books I quickly dismantled all of her conclusions and ideas because they were all based on the fact that she failed to grasp the basics of Catholicism; even though she has a doctorate from some fancy school in front of her name, all of the research and conclusions that she had compiled were patently wrong! An even worse example: in an introduction to christianity class, we had a guest speaker who was a catholic priest. Close to 40% of what he said was a poor representation of the catholic religion, and I actually got in an argument with him in front of the entire class over whether or not papal infallibility states that the pope can be a heretic. I had to pull up the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia to prove to him that he was wrong about one of the biggest and most recent doctrines in his own religion. A 47 year old priest with a MASTERS in theology from a catholic seminary should not be able to be proven wrong on one of the most defining features of his religion by a 22 year old in an INTRODUCTION course who hasn’t even graduated from college yet (ESPECIALLY by simply pulling up an online encyclopedia authored by the church itself). To this very day I am appalled at the ordeal and feel that the state of catholicism today is due to an ABSENCE of education in the church: everyone believed what he said because he was an educated administer of the religion, BUT HE WAS WRONG. It is for reasons like this that I advocate that anyone wishing to enter into the discussion of reforms on any side (wether for or against) be perpetually reaching for more and more depth of understanding.

Sorry, I did not mean to get that serious, or for this to be a long comment; my mind just races at a thousand miles a minute so I tend to data dump on people sometimes. I think, Terence, that I should clarify that I think that what you are doing here is a great, beautiful, and much needed thing. Your site helped to neutralize the worst of my despair and anxiety in the darkest ever period in my life. My friends often tell me that my personality somehow has a distinctively contradictory mix of harshness and tenderness at the same time, and I want you to know that no matter what the tone any of my comments may appear to take I will always have nothing but good will for you and your work. If there is any way I can help you please let me know, and PLEASE do not hesitate to inform me if I bother you in any way. :-)

Of the readings I recommended below, I think that would find all of them important, but I think that you might be particularly interested in Desan’s work (it is about a period of time in modern history when there were catholic priests an entire and deeply catholic country to preform the sacraments for several years , and how catholics dealt with it and what evolutions the religion took. I actually cried a bit when I read this because as an ex-sedevacantist I personally experienced much of exactly what they were going through).

I would also HIGHLY recommend Thomas F Matthew’s “The Clash of The Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art”. Revised and expanded edition. Princeton 1999. Particularly the aspects of Christians depicting christ with both male and female attributes to signal his divine and life-giving nature, and how the apse artwork of churches was propaganda for church authority, and other excellent insights to early Christianity.

I also would HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend that you watch this lecture about what it means to be a catholic. It is beautiful, I think all catholics both liberal and conservative, and non-catholics should watch it. I honestly cannot speak highly enough of this lecture and I hope that you post a link to it on your site!!

http://queeringthechurch.com Terence Weldon

Hi PF, thanks for this. I’m not going to comment on the substance, at all, but I do want you to know a few things.
First, I did read this all, right through, and appreciate it.
I do recognize your appreciation for the site, which you refer to here, but which I have always known and respected.
If I do not always respond to you, it’s not because I want to ignore you, but usually simply because I don’t know how to – especially with such lengthy posts. (It’s much easier to respond to something short and concise).
I appreciate your reading recommendations, but the reality of my life is that I am constantly pushed for time, in a very serious way. Keeping the site going requires effectively working at two jobs (only one of which is paid, and that below minimum wage), seven days a week, most weeks. I don’t have time to read what I think I should be reading, let alone other recommendations. However, I agree with your general point: far too many of the people who pontificate about “Catholic teaching” or “Catholic tradition” really don’t know what they are talking about.

It’s now late (I’ve just come in from my evening’s work), and I’m off to bed. G’night.

Promotor Fidei

Thanks, jayden, for your point of view. I will have to get a copy of Schillebeeckx’s work. You are very correct about the need to trace back the roots of certain doctrines and theologies. However, it is also crucial to understand the problematic nature of the ‘early church’. First being, how far back are we wanting to talk about? Centralized control of church affairs and theologies was already in fairly strong implementation by the time that the apostle Paul died. There is a point when going back past a certain point is useless for because practices of the church in its earliest days are not really useable today; because the church then was a small, underground, convert-only religion where Christians only entered the church on deep convictions rather than ‘inherited’ religious beliefs and glorified martyrdom almost to the point of considering that those who died a natural death were not true believers and so not really a part of the church. Another example of a belief/practice of the ‘early days’ was that ALL sex was bad and that you should not even marry, and some regions almost looked down upon women who became pregnant, whether married nor not, as a sign that she was not committed to Christ. This all changed as the generations passed and people came to no longer believe that Christ was returning immediately, so no sex or reproduction no longer became practical; then during and after Constantine, more believes and practices changed as there it was no longer possible for people to prove themselves through the ‘Sacrament’ of martyrdom after Christianity was legalized so they had to look to new methods/rituals of ultimate dedication to Christ (not to mention that the majority of new converts after the legalization had no interest whatsoever in proving themselves through being martyred), and there was now a huge influx of people converting to the religion out of social convenience and so the original focus of pure imitation of christ by every individual rapidly became extinct and replaced with communal worship type rituals (it became viewed that it was only the responsibility of those who were ‘called’ [clergy and religious] to imitate christ [who were then sainted if their lives were a quality imitation] while all the other ['social'] christians went to communal worship rituals on sundays and then lived their regular worldly lives for the rest of the week). So basically, studying the very earliest days of the church reveals little relevance and guidance on todays issues, and by the time you have practices and beliefs in the early church that are useable today there is already a well established centralized hierarchical system in place (different, yes, in many superficial aspects, but the deeper you look in to it the the more you find that the fundamentals are nearly all the same as in more modern periods).

So that you have a better idea of where I am coming from I will tell you my personal position: I am deeply torn on this issue. While in the past I whole heartedly believed in the necessity of a validly ordained priest and a validly preformed ritual and all that for the validity of the sacrament, I now am nearly ambivalent to the ‘reality’ of such things. However, I support the maintenance of such doctrine because I feel that it is necessary for a catholic (meaning universal, for all people rather than for this group or that group) religion. Anytime this has been cast aside in history, the result is a sectarian breakdown of the religion as a result of breaking the ties that link otherwise unrelated communities/groups/nations together (aka, the severance of catholicity; that is what catholic means – linking everyone, even those who would otherwise have no connection with each other, together) . I also strongly suspect that some of the hierarchy no longer truly deep down believes in the requirement of priestly consecration for validity, but fear that the church will rapidly disintegrate into a (and after a while cease to be a unified, and so no longer universal) religion like protestant sectarianism in the US).

For ANY change on this issue people will need to relieve the hierarchy’s fears that it will not destabilize and threaten the catholicity of the church before you can get them to even entertain the idea of discussing the matter. Personally, I do not think that it can be done; but maybe I will be proven wrong.

Also, as an aside, when I speak of protestantism, the dominant view I have is that of American protestant sectarianism, which is vastly different than the protestantism of Europe. So, if you are from Europe, your viewing of a ‘protestant’ style change in the church would be largely different than my viewing of a ‘protestant’ style change. Because the connotations that my experience of protestantism have given me may be different than the connotations that your experience of protestantism has given you, we may seem to be in opposition when really we are in agreement about the core issue. I think you can see this in the difference between bulk of the theologians in the US and Europe. In Europe many theologians seem to be favorable or at least not fearful of protestant importations, and the lay catholics of europe (at least in germany and belgium) seem to be PRO-protestant in their outlook, probably due to the more liberal and harmonious outlooks of the european protestant churches. In the US however, the majority of the protestant churches are mired in heavy sectarian politics and all US catholics see is the disunity, pettiness, and exclusionism from the protestant/sectarian traditions. In the US, the Catholic church (despite its failings) is the one of the most liberal and harmonious of the major churches, while the protestants are pro-segregation (churches where only black people are welcome, or the recent case in the news of a white girl bringing her black boyfriend to her all white church and a fight breaking out), in favor of stripping gays of what little rights they already have, adamant that everyone that is not like them is going to hell, and twisting the teachings of Christ into monstrous words of hate like the West Borough Baptist Church. Obviously there lots are individual exceptions, but this is the general climate. That is why it is less common to see catholic lay people and theologians in-favor of protestant style reforms in the US.
Promotor Fidei

Jayden, can you direct me to some more sources about that you use (specifically for research about the eucharistic practices of the early church)? I am very excited to get my hands on more of that information!! Anytime I find something that I seem to be lacking in understanding I have this incredible urge to find out more, lol.

A cursory (but not so cursory as to be misleading) outline about clerical power that I have come to understand through my research:

Much of the ‘power’ grabbing people
criticize was largely out of necessity after Constantine. Yes, clearly some of it
was for personal gain, but when you suddenly have hundreds of thousands of
people joining any sort of group, all with their own ideas and world-views (such as in the shift from the ‘early church’ to a large widespread religion) you
have to consolidate power in some manner (Ex: The Romans lost their democratic republic
when they expanded their territory and population to a size that could no
longer be controlled by a government that shared power, the rise of the
Emperors was largely a necessity to keep the Empire together once it grew to massive
proportions). The centralization of power was often a necessary evil to
protect the essence of the religion, all one has to do is to look at the times
when the fundamentals of the religion were threatened with extinction by fadish
and popular ideas of the time to see when the major power consolidation and
constrictions are set in place.

For example, in the 2nd-7th
centuries, every time there was a major heresy (such as the idea that Christ
was just a messenger and not God, or that Christ did not have an actually body
he was just a spirit that looked like he had a body) that was in-vogue enough
to eclipse what christians originally believed, you can clearly see the Church
clamping down trying to prevent the fundamentals of the original forms of christianity
from being pushed out by the latest fashionable idea.

Fast forward to the
middle-ages, and you see again the church clamp down and build up its authority
and control due to the unnecessary and mass violence of the feudal lords
tearing European society apart and threatening to pull the church down and make
it another tool for their self-gain. As I studied in my history of the crusades
class, the Church started making up things like the Truce of God and
making confessions an absolute requirement before death to try to stop the
unimaginable violence; and the first crusade was actually an attempt to get the
worse of the warlords out of Europe (hoping that they would get themselves
killed, or at least turn their warmongering into something ‘good’ like
returning the holy land to christian influence) long enough to bring some peace
and stability to the continent.

Fast forward yet again, and you see
the church reach unprecedented levels of psychological, political, and physical
power during the counter-reformation. This was not due to Martin Luther’s
thesis, but only after protestant ideas that threatened the existence of the
basics of the original christian religion (replacing the basic goodness
of humans with the idea that they are depraved and should not bother trying to
control their sinful nature, the idea that god created some humans specifically
to burn in hell forever rather than a loving god that wants everyone to be
saved, the idea that humans have no free will – either controlled by god or the
devil – rather than the original christian view that all humans have freewill
to choose their destiny, etc) spread to huge portions of Europe and threatened to eclipse the original tenets of christianity. Even
then it was not until the horror the church experienced when Rome was leveled
by a Protestant army (women and children killed indiscriminately, monks
slaughtered in the streets for not converting, nuns gang raped and torn limb
from limb, priests butchered for refusing to defile the consecrated eucharist
by feeding it to goats, desecrated the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, and burning down most of the churches and well over 50%
of the entire city; even the protestant commander was scandalized by the level of horror, violence, and destruction his own forces perpetrated on the church) that the Church entered into survival mode and clamped down
in an almost fascist way and ushered in the hyper-controling reforms of Trent
and the worst of the inquisitions.

Move forward yet again, and you
have the Church threatened with being subordinated by a secular government
(political independence is critical to minimizing politics from affecting the
the religion since its very inception; even though independence does not
prevent all politics from affecting it) by Italian unification. The Papacy held
Rome and the Papal States for close to a thousand years specifically so that
the Church leadership could remain independent of direct political control
(like when the Popes became puppets to the French aristocracy in Avignon; they
moved back to rome to prevent further direct manipulations of the religion).
The loss of political independence once again caused the church to clamp down
in fear; with the Church leadership in near literal house arrest in the Vatican
for 70 years, the Church tried to ensure its survival and independence by
strengthening its authority in theological matters. It is during this period
that you see the Popes becoming more dogmatic and absolutist than ever and with the rise of things like Papal Infallability: Many of the Popes of these 70
years were notoriously aggressive, condescending, volatile, and difficult to
control during meetings with Italian authorities, and every single one of them
was adamantly against any and all kinds of modernism and reform. This was in
marked contrast to many of their personalities; many of the Popes of this
period had some of the most kind, gentle, forgiving, pious, pastoral, and
charitable personalities of any of the popes in any period. While several acted
like self-proclaimed demi-gods with all of the domineering aggression of Pope
Julius II (often called Julius the Terrible, for his violent, domineering, and
explosive personality) in front of secular authorities who held them captive,
in their personal lives, charities, and pastoral work most showed all of the
gentle love and humility of the first John Paul (like Benedict XV and Leo VIII,
who were harsh against modernism and the Italian state, but in their less public
teachings they sound just as progressive as John 23rd, early Paul VI, and JP1).
The absolute refusal to concede anything or even consider modernist
reforms is (I am convinced) largely due to their immense fear for the survival
of the church that they loved. The first Vatican council and things like Papal
Infallibility (which simultaneously boosts the importance of the Pope/Church,
but the technicalities of which also has the affect of making it nearly
impossible for modernism and reforms to be permanently enshrined with the
authority of st. peter) was a fear induced survival reaction to loosing its political independence. This is further supported by the fact that the later
Popes and hierarchy of this period were less pouty and a little more relaxed
(due to their becoming accustomed to the situation), and the fact that the
first new Papacy after the threat had passed (the church’s guarantee of
independence in the 1929 treaty establishing the Vatican City Sate, and with
WW2 over) the Second Vatican Council was called embracing all of the
modernist liberalism and de-centralization of power that the Church had just
made so much noise about rejecting.

So yes, much of the theological,
doctrinal, and dogmatic elements of the Church can be eliminated through study
of the church in its different periods, however please be careful not to fall
into the trap of thinking that the early church holds all the answers as many
protestants do (such as “there is no pope in the bible, they did not have
organs in the early church, there are no sacraments in the bible, jesus doesn’t
speak of the trinity, etc, so those things are man made and should be
abolished”). These attitudes misunderstand that much of the church’s
traditions and beliefs are solutions to semantical problems that the church has
faced throughout history and/or answers to the massive theological holes that
are present in scripture; the inability to see this is why Martin Luther was
baffled that once he over-threw the authority of Tradition and Magisterium he was completely
incapable of controlling or maintaining the unity his movement or preventing it from rapidly developing theologies and
semantics that he deeply disapproved of. Meaning, that some of these ‘man-made’
things are ‘necessary evils’ (like death and taxes) to maintain the
fundamentals of the religion and to keep a measure of unity through the world
(rather than just breaking down into national/regional religions that have no relevance,
compatibility, or ties to other nations and peoples).

Queering the Church towards a reality based theology

Recent Posts

Queers in History

It’s a Queer World

Queering Theology and Ministry

Queer Saints, Martyrs – and Others!

Queer Scripture

Queer Spirituality

Queer Church Archive: