Resolved: the pastoral versus the doctrinal
August 26, 2011
Given the very interesting response to my colleagues remarkable short post on perfect versus imperfect contrition, I wanted to steal his format to ask a question that I have chewed on from time to time. It seems to me that many of the disagreements in the Church today can be framed as fights over whether the Church should be more “pastoral” (reflecting divine Love and Mercy) or more “doctrinal”(reflecting divine Justice and Righteousness). I am not happy with the terminology “pastoral” and “doctrinal” (especially the latter) but I hope that my sense is clear.
Resolved: if the Church errs, it should err on the side of being more pastoral rather than on the side of being more doctrinal.
Please discuss.
Advertisement
25 Comments
Comments are closed.
Is it possible that this conflict is reflective of our cultural tendencies based on individualism, to try shape the Church and it’s teaching to our wants, rather than being disciples? It seems that both sides are trying to define what they feel the Church aught to be, rather than the Church defining itself based on Truth and revelation. I certainly have my ideas and opinions, and coming from a fundamentalist background and never wanting to go back, I land clearly n the Pastoral side…at least when I approach the question based on feeling. I would suggest this should not be either/or but rather both/and
Peace.
Brian,
The temptation to make the Church what we want rather than what it ought to be (as distinct at times from what it is) is a reality of our fallen natures, and I think we need to be mindful of that as we think about “being the Church.” My question is tied into this. I am less sure that only the pastoral approach is tied into emotions. If you have read my previous posts on Zizek, I am partial to his idea that any ideological system derives its power from unconscious/emotional attachments. These may not be as readily visible in those who respond in a “doctrinal” fashion since their responses are more overtly rational, but I suspect that they are there. (This is not to discount the rational arguments, however. One can be emotional and still be right.) And I agree that things should be “both/and” instead of “either/or” but there are far too many times when they are (or at least appear to be) in conflict. If balance proves impossible, which way should the Church err?
Note: I have in mind a couple examples of places where such a tension exists. They will probably come up, but I am loathe, this early in the discussion to mention them for fear of getting this discussion sidetracked.
I’m not sure I like that dichotomy – if you look at the spiritual works of mercy, both “mercy” & “justice” (at least how you described them) are involved –
To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly; –
Rather than saying “We should do A more than B”, I think our Church should rather do BOTH as much as possible. We should admonish sinners in the flock who obstinately refuse to follow the commandments of God, but we should also take them back with open arms and forgive all their wrongs if they repent in contrition.
Too often “pastoral” is used as a code-word for “silent” – “oh no, we shouldn’t denounce an assault on the teachings of the Church (be it about war, economics, or human dignity), that wouldn’t be very pastoral of us.”
Robert,
all very good points, and I agree that sometimes (though not always) “pastoral=silence.” However, there are times when “doctrinal” is a code word for self-righteousness that ignores real people and real pain. Recall the condemnations of the Pharisees made by Jesus: the same things still happen today.
I agree, we need to strike a balance, but sometimes we cannot, or it feels “wrong” at some gut level.
If pastoral ministry is not Truth, it is not pastoral.
One must preach doctrinal Truth to be pastoral.
If a doctor misdiagnoses the patient or prescribes the wrong medication, the patient will get more ill, no matter the qualities of the bed side manner.
If I understand David’s question, it isn’t what is preached so much as the counsel given in private.
For example, suppose John and Mary are married civilly, but both of them are on second marriages, and neither first marriage can be annulled. They are “living in sin” and therefore not eligible to receive the sacraments. Suppose further that they approach a pastor because they want Sally and Beth, their 2nd grade twins and the oldest of the four children they have together, to receive first holy communion in the One True Church. Of course a good pastor will happily receive children into preparation classes no matter the status of the parents. But,… Here’s a perfect opportunity for the pastor to instill some doctrinal Truth and explain to them that John and Mary must live apart forever, until both their ex-spouses die.
What should the pastor do? He can err on the side of doctrine, and let the child be raised as an Episcopalian (which is to say, separated from doctrinal Truth about the indissolubility of marriage), or he can err on the side of mercy, and let the parents continue living in sin… until somebody dies. What should the 2nd grade CCD teacher tell Sally and Beth about their parents’ relationship?
Is that the kind of situation you have in mind, David?
This discussion reminds me of the Ratzinger quote, ‘”Love without truth is blind. Truth without love is empty.” The two are inseparable, and the “trick” is to manage the balance between them.
Good quote.
You were struggling with the terms ‘pastoral’ and ‘doctrinal’. Can I substitue ‘mercy’ and ‘faithfulness’ as your intended meaning? If so,from Psalm 85…;
I will hear what the Lord has to say,
a voice that speaks of peace,
peace for his people and friends
and those who turn to him in their hearts.
His help is near for those who fear him
and his glory will dwell in our land
Mercy and faithfulness have met;
justice and peace have embraced.
Faithfulness shall spring from the earth
and justice look down from heaven.
Once again, today as always, divisions are overcome by conversion.
Thank you: these terms get at some of what I was trying to convey. For the rest of this thread I am going to stick with the terms pastoral and doctrinal—I don’t want to switch horses in midstream. But you have put a finger on what I am driving at.
I love how the discussion in the comment thread immediately jumps to “both/and” – and this from multiple voices. That gives me hope for our church.
One thing I’ve been realizing in the course of my theological studies is that doctrine, at its origin, is rooted in pastoral situations. (I can name examples if asked, but allow me to speak more broadly for the moment.) The problem is that too often we forget these connections and speak as if our doctrines fell from the sky in neat packages, or sprang fully formed from the head of Thomas Aquinas, or something.
So I agree with the general sentiment about favoring the pastoral, but perhaps a way to phrase it that comes closer to reconciling the dichotomy would be to say that the development and application of doctrine should always be shaped by pastoral needs. And yes, doctrine can inform pastoral situations too, but only because it comes out of the church’s pastoral experience.
In the hypothetical case of John and Mary and their twins, I would think there might be a
pastoral approach in keeping with doctrinal purity that doesn’t require John and Mary to
separate, although it requires a leap in prudential judgment. I’m thinking of the course
that moral theologians back in the early 60s used to recommend, i.e., having John and
Mary pledge to live chastely under the same roof long enough to raise the twins…and beyond, if they so wish. That approach definitely entails risk, but so do all the alternatives.
It’s an example of the kind of creativity a pastoral approach makes possible.
Frank,
thank you: I think with your hypothetical example you are getting at the real tensions I am concerned about. In airy abstraction we can talk about “both/and” but my concern is that it doesn’t work out so neatly in practice. Only in God do mercy and faithfulness kiss, as Tausign so aptly quoted above. For the rest of us it is a balancing act, and we will make mistakes.
Here are some other very real examples which also involve preaching:
* My blogging colleague Sofia Loves Wisdom wrote movingly about the real pain she experienced when priests and deacons preach about the sanctity of marriage (true doctrine) without acknowledging the reality that marriages fail and people can be trapped in abusive relationships.
* Two of my mathematical colleagues, both raised in Catholic countries, recounting their belief (fully formed by their experience with their local Catholic churches) that divorce is such an evil that you automatically excommunicate yourself by getting a civil divorce. No, the Church does not teach that; but that is what was communicated in defense of the doctrine of marriage.
* A parish in Southwestern Wisconsin receives new priests from a conservative congregation who unilaterally decide to stop allowing girls to be altar servers. Their perogrative under canon law, but an action resulting in great pastoral tumult.
* A pastor I knew who once told me that he would not preach on abortion because he knew women in the parish who had had abortions, and did not want to upset them. Understandable from a pastoral perspective, but does this do justice to the truth about human life?
A personal note: Irene is supposed to hit here beginning around 2 AM, so I may or may not have internet access tomorrow. Please be patient if you do not see your comment approved. Peace and all good.
I am reminded of this piece that I read over at the America blog awhile back:
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=55342020-3048-741E-3423147191796503
Here is the meat of it:
The priest, named Paolo Rizzi, a pastor and professor of theology, asked Benedict XVI a question about baptism, confirmation, and first communion:
“Holy Father, 35 years ago I thought that we were beginning to be a little flock, a minority community, more or less everywhere in Europe; that we should therefore administer the sacraments only to those who are truly committed to Christian life. Then, partly because of the style of John Paul II’s Pontificate, I thought things through again. If it is possible to make predictions for the future, what do you think? What pastoral approaches can you suggest to us?”.
Pope Ratzinger responded:
“I must say that I took a similar route to yours. When I was younger I was rather severe. I said: the sacraments are sacraments of faith, and where faith does not exist, where the practice of faith does not exist, the Sacrament cannot be conferred either. And then I always used to talk to my parish priest when I was Archbishop of Munich: here too there were two factions, one severe and one broad-minded. Then I too, with time, came to realize that we must follow, rather, the example of the Lord, who was very open even with people on the margins of Israel of that time. He was a Lord of mercy, too open – according to many official authorities – with sinners, welcoming them or letting them invite him to their dinners, drawing them to him in his communion.
“Therefore I would say substantially that the sacraments are naturally sacraments of faith: when there is no element of faith, when First Communion is no more than a great lunch with beautiful clothes and beautiful gifts, it can no longer be a sacrament of faith. Yet, on the other hand, if we can still see a little flame of desire for communion in the faith, a desire even in these children who want to enter into communion with Jesus, it seems to me that it is right to be rather broad-minded.”
You’ve pointed out my tendency to favor abstractions. Now I’m forced to choose which error is best…
This discussion evokes some of the issues confronted in the parable of The Prodigal Son. The elder son (who favors justice and righteousness) is crestfallen over the father’s embrace of wayward son (with pastoral love and charity).
As the parable shows, its the ‘pastoral’ approach that facilitates God’s plan to reach out to his beloved children and offer healing and salvation. If we err in the ‘doctinal’ approach we can easily descend into legalism, where the letter of the law opposes the spirit of the law.
The Church knows that all her children are in need of conversion. Those who find themselves in the pigs troth, steeped in humiliation or pain, may begin sooner than those who are righteous.
I was not singling you out—it was my sense that all the responses were running in this direction. Thanks for this nice tie-in to the parable.
I too tend to favor abstractions, and I do think they are sometimes dismissed too hastily, but ultimately I believe theory and practice are interdependent. Some parts of this conversation are reminding me of Louis-Marie Chauvet and his approach, within his development of sacramental theology, to the pastoral dilemma (a frequent one in the French context) of non-practicing Catholics requesting the sacraments of marriage and/or baptism. He makes some very strong pastoral/doctrinal connections there (the book is The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body), which I find an excellent example of theology & doctrine being continually informed by pastoral context.
If we are still grasping for terminology to use, I might offer Stanley Hauerwas’s opinion, inspired by Kierkegaard. I think he speaks of pastoral concerns vs. doctrine when he states that he “we cannot understand the ‘what’ of Christianity without knowing ‘how’ to be a Christian.” When we study the Gospels, I think we see Jesus engaged in “how” to be a child of God much more than “what” god is.
I like Newman’s approach: “It is the Incarnation of the Son of God rather than any doctrine drawn from a partial view of Scripture (however true and momentous it may be) which is the article of a standing or falling Church.” For Newman, doctrine was not an abstraction: it was a person, Jesus. The question, for me, is this: what best shows the face of Jesus? Lazy pastoralism says “just be nice.” Lazy doctrinalism says “just follow the rule.” Love finds the way, as Jesus did among those ready to stone the adulteress. And that’s why religious practice is so critical: because only with practice can we become virtuosos at imitating Jesus.
Muldoont writes, ‘For Newman, doctrine was not an abstraction: it was a person, Jesus. The question, for me, is this: what best shows the face of Jesus? … only with practice can we become virtuosos at imitating Jesus.’
But the idea that “doctrine is a person, Jesus”: is that not itself a doctrine?
Doctrines are just statements of truth. “God is love” and “adultery is wrong” are both equally statements of doctrine. Since they are both true, there can be no conflict between them. If someone thinks the latter statement should be withheld or downplayed in certain circumstances, would he also say that the former should be withheld in others?
It seems like some people want to say “love, love, love” all the time, but never “danger! warning! take heed!” If someone is in danger from sin, isn’t a warning an act of charity, just as it would be if he were in danger from fire or an oncoming bus?
Angelus:
I don’t think anyone one here is saying don’t warn of danger. What many are describing is that the patoral may be more important in getting soime to embrace the faith, when the doctrinal may not be as effective, in just that regard. But no one is saying to neglect the doctrinal.
As easy as cliche as it seems, you simply cannot have one without the other and teach the Truth.
There are many different roads for different people to reach their own goals. In all cases, sometimes more doctrinal or more pastoral will be a better path, for them.
As I said above, no matter how good the bedside manner of a doctor maybe, they still must provide the proper medical care or the patient will not get better.
I don’t understand how you can err “on the side of being more doctrinal”. What would such an error consist of? Teaching “too much doctrine”?
I’m just guessing, but maybe what you mean is, placing stress on doctrinal accuracy at the expense of something else. But what would that something else be? Do you mean stressing doctrinal accuracy at the expense of comforting people?
But if you are saying we should be more concerned with comforting people than with being doctrinally accurate, that implies that we may be doctrinally inaccurate for the sake of providing comfort. But isn’t that along the lines of “ignorance is bliss”?
Suppose instead of doctrinal accuracy we were talking about scientific accuracy. If it’s better to be doctrinally inaccurate for the sake of providing comfort, should we not also be scientifically inaccurate for the same purpose? Thus, for example, tell people that global warming is no longer a concern, for the sake of easing their worry and making them feel better?
Agellius, I made clear about what I meant by “doctrinal” and you are missing the point.
Please reread my post in response to Frank above, in which I lay out several specific instances in which I felt that the “doctrinal” and “pastoral” are in tension, and that in our limitations we will end up erring in one direction or the other. How would you resolve these tensions, or do you fail to see the tensions I am referring to?
I suspect that much of the tension between the pastoral and the doctrinal is artificial. On the one hand, yes, to fail to give due warning of a serious danger is ultimately not very loving (nor, by the same token, is it good pastoral practice). On the other hand, to club somebody over the head with doctrine as if it existed for its own sake, rather than for pastoral purposes, is not very loving either, and such behavior loses sight of doctrine’s raison d’etre. Most if not all doctrine comes out of the church’s experience of pastoral situations, and should always be applied and upheld (and sometimes adjusted) with this in mind.
David:
Usually when I comment, I’m commenting on the original post and not the comments to the post. So no, I did not read Frank’s comment or your response to him before posting my comment. Since you ask what I think of your comment to Frank, I will respond to that.
You ask, “How would you resolve these tensions, or do you fail to see the tensions I am referring to?”
Regarding the first, I think the sanctity of marriage certainly needs to be preached. I’m not sure what it adds to such a homily to add, “Of course some marriages fail and people can be trapped in abusive relationships”. Does a homily on the sanctity of the Mass always need to mention the fact that sometimes the liturgy is abused?
I think the sanctity of marriage is the context in which a discussion of a “failed” marriage must take place: its sanctity is the very reason it must not be abused or neglected, yet, like the Mass, must be respected even when it is abused by some.
Regarding the second, you’re talking about false or inaccurate preaching on marriage and divorce. Certainly that should be corrected where it occurs.
Regarding the third, I’m not sure what “pastoral tumult” refers to. But I would note that being an altar girl is an indulgence and not a right. That should have been made clear to people from the start. It’s unfortunate if people were led to believe otherwise. I think here is a case where a bad pastoral situation — an unwarranted expectation that altar girls should and would always be allowed — may have been *caused* by deficient doctrinal instruction.
Regarding the fourth, I think it’s ridiculous not to preach against a sin because there are people in the congregation who have committed that sin. You can’t let more people fall into a sin in order to spare the feelings of those who already have. I would consider that very bad pastoral practice as well as being deficient doctrinally.
So, I still maintain that being doctrinally accurate is part-and-parcel of being authentically pastoral.