Disagreement Shouldn’t Motivate Departure
LifeSiteNews recently published an Opinion Piece by E. Scott Lloyd entitled “The Church According to Governor O’Malley.” It appears occasioned by the Maryland Governor’s decision to support, through legislation, the right of gay and lesbian persons to marry partners of the same sex.
The Governor views it as “unjust” for the State of Maryland to treat the relationships of gay and lesbian persons differently than those of heterosexual persons. To Mr. E. Scott Lloyd, the Governor has essentially “declared his sincere willingness to be seen as a sham from both sides of the gay marriage issue.” The ‘reasoning’ of E. Scott Lloyd: If the Governor finds the exclusion of same-sex persons from the legal marriage process an injustice, then he must view the Roman Church as guilty as the State of Maryland, and if the Roman Church teaches injustice, why then has the Governor remained a Catholic, and overlooked their advocacy of what he sees as injustice?
Perhaps Mr. E. Scott Lloyd would respect the integrity of someone like novelist Anne Rice who last year shared that while she remains committed to Christ she would not be allying herself to sentiments characteristic of Christianity but foreign to Jesus: “In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control…” In subsequent interviews, Rice expanded on why she feels no longer able to attach herself to Christianity.
Insofar as Rice has found herself committed to Christ, but dramatically less so to Christianity, I remember thinking that she had tapped into one very important reality, namely, that Jesus and the Church are distinct. However, I was bothered by the whole happening of her leaving Catholicism because I felt that a second closely related reality might not have been entertained in her reflection. I felt that as real as the distinction might be between the Church and Jesus, equally real is that the two are held in relation.
In theological reflection about the Church’s identity, a number of images find their origin in the earliest moments of Christianity. Images such as “people of God,” “body of Christ,” or “temple of the Holy Spirit” each articulate different features of the Church’s identity and relation to Jesus, but one image in particular goes all the way back to Jesus himself. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus refers to himself as the “bride-groom,” and then in the Letter to the Ephesians, the author identifies the Church as the bride of Jesus. When the Church is understood as the bride of Jesus Christ, primarily what emerges is a recognition of the relational reality between Jesus and persons, and found within such a relation is love.
The Introduction to Pope Benedict’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est sheds light on this mystery. In Paragraph 1, the Pope writes that “being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.”
By Rice’s claim to abandon Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general, I remember thinking that it seemed she had reduced both Catholicism and Christianity to certain propositions about human sexuality. Instead, Catholicism and the larger Christian community are characterized by their encounter with Jesus Christ, a person who “gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.” Rice felt compelled to leave Catholicism, but by making the Church’s teachings on human sexuality the litmus test of catholicity, I felt she seemed to share the mistake of many with whom she would normally disagree (individuals who question the catholicity of any Catholic whose views on human sexuality are at odds with those of the present Church).
If an encounter with Jesus gives a person’s life a new horizon and a decisive direction, then the Church cannot be indifferent to any facet of human life, including human sexuality. However, if individual Catholics like Ms. Rice can use their occasions of disagreement with the Church as an opportunity to reflect on the Church as the bride of Christ, then the result will be positive, because it will remind such persons of the self-giving love that exists between Jesus and the Church. It will remind such persons of the importance of the Eucharist, a central way in which such love is expressed. Perhaps one of the reasons Rice stated she would so miss the Eucharist was because in those moments when Christ had been mediated to her and others, she had experienced the transforming love of Jesus.
I believe we are called to love what Jesus loves. From the earliest moments of Christianity, Christians have articulated Jesus’ love for his Bride the Church. Jesus loves those imperfect persons who represent the Church that Ms. Rice feels is responsible for diminishing the dignity of others. Despite the Church’s long history, wherein many sins have been, likely are being, and will continue to be committed, the Church both continues to experience, and mediate, Jesus’ transforming love.
That is why I would hope to never leave the Church, and I would love to have discussed this with Ms. Rice. Given the quality of “The Church According to Governor O’Malley,” no doubt Mr. E. Scott Lloyd would very much have benefited from listening in on such a conversation.
K.
Kelly Wilson is a Seminarian for the Archdiocese of Winnipeg. Besides Vox Nova, he writes at his blog Musings.
Like this:
Trackbacks
- A Question About Dissent and Catholic Identity « Catholibertarian
- Real Union Still Exists in Disagreement « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
Kelly, that is a very profound reflection on the greater issue of the struggles of persons of faith.
On the narrow issue raised by Lloyd, I would just say that one can make the case that there is an unjust discrimination in the denial of civil marriage yet not in the sacramental act.
Hi Kurt, thanks for the comment. You latter comment identifies, I think, yet another objection to the sweeping claims of Mr. E. Scott Lloyd.
I wouldn’t say that Jesus and the Church are distinct. I’m no expert in ecclesiology, but that just doesn’t sound right.
Hello Pinky, thanks for the comment. What word would you use to convey the reality that Jesus and the Church are not identical?
Thanks for a great, and much needed, reflection Kelly.
The head and the body are inseparably bound up together but still the head remains distinct from the body.
The three persons of the Holy Trinity are One God but are still distinct persons.
Those two mysteries speak volumes on the unity of the Church while respecting differences.
God Bless
“the head may be distinct from the body” but the church cannot be distinct from Christ..or it ceases to be the Church…..
But this touches on the idea that I have that suggests that very often, especially in our individualistic American society, people have a tendency to try to define what the Church is based on what their personal opinions are more so than based on what the Church through revelation of the Spirit teaches as Truth.
Bruce, thanks for the comment.
Can you clarify something for me? You write “the Church cannot be distinct from Christ…or it ceases to be Church.” Huh? Christ is not the Church. Right? The Church is not Christ. Right? They…are… “distinct.” The Church is the “Bride” of Christ. The Church is the “People” of God. The Church is the “body” of Christ. These are ways of identifying the Church’s relation to Christ.
Maybe you are interpreting “distinct” in a more polarizing way than is intended. Perhaps you have a better word that you feel could be used? In any event, you cite the tendency of persons to define what the Church is based on their personal opinions more so than what the Church “through the revelation of the Spirit teaches as Truth.”
Yes, that happens. No doubt. But what an unforunate vision you call us to. Defining the Church in terms of what it “teaches”? I can hear Pope Benedict in the distance: “Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter…” What the Church teaches, and what the Christian person affirms, is to be a consequence of that encounter.
You should have a problem with E. Scott Lloyd, and Anne Rice, reducing Catholicism to its propositions about human sexuality.
Sorry. That would be “Brian,” not “Bruce.” There’s a fairly prominent minister in Winnipeg named “Bruce Martin” so perhaps I just overestimated the reach of my post. :)
Kelly, I absolutely have a problem with reducing Catholicism to it’s propositions about human sexuality. That is my point, I think. People reduce the Church to it’s teaching on a subject that either speaks to them or offends them.
Unfortunate vision of the Church that I call you to? I suspect then, that I was not clear about what I was saying. In saying that the Church cannot be distinct from Christ, my premise is that without Christ there is no Church. Without the gift of the Holy Spirit, sent by Christ, there is no Church. If the Church becomes simply it’s hierarchy and it’s rules, it is no longer Christ’s Church, but rather simply a human construct, without Truth revealed through the Holy Spirit
Here’s a video commentary from Fr. Barron regarding Ann Rice’s departure from Catholicism…
Thanks for the link. I hope viewers check it out, and watch more of what Fr. Barron does…
Thanks Brian, for re-stating your position. I mis-read your initial comment. I now understand and agree with what you are saying about the relationship between the Church and Jesus. At the same time, I maintain that the word “distinct” is appropriate…
Yes, it appears that we were speaking past each other, meaning different things. The nice thing is here people take the time to clarify and dialogue rather than attack
I have often struggled with the idea of civil unions – not marriage – and the Church’s position on this. I believe that we must look to the Church for guidance though and not depart from Her on such important issues. The homosexual act is against natural law so I think we should trust the fact that the Church has defended the natural law for many, many years prior to homosexuality being considered “normal” in our society today. The Magisterium has rules for a reason just like any other entity and if we decide to pick and choose which laws fit our personal preferences or own selfish wishes what is the point of belonging to the Body of Christ? Has our society become that which cedes moral truth to that of moral relativism?
This is an intersting aspect of the Church’s teaching. The Church teaches that homosexual unions are contrary to nature and so Catholics struggle with civil unions, as some think while these unions are unnatural, persons who act this way still should be able to receive certain social protections.
On the other hand, the Church teaches that labor unions are in accord with nature, so while Catholics might struggle with the idea of unions of those who act against nature, Catholics have no option but to support unions that are in accord with man’s nature.
Unfortunately union leaders and some union members have become what they fought against – bullies, using their bully pulpit to promote more than their fair share of the pie. They are forcing ordinary Americans (not saying union members aren’t ordinary members but non-union taxpayers are paying for much of union benefits) to incur much of the burden with regards to paying taxes across the board. Unions were needed much more so in an earlier time period when there weren’t any health inspectors or laws to protect the worker. But some within the Church today have subverted some of the teachings which were taught by the Church when there weren’t any laws to protect the worker or any health inspectors in order to fit their own agenda today.
[Okay, I'm going to insert myself into this conversation and note that now that you both have gotten to say something about unions, let's leave it at that. As much as the stats of this post would benefit from continuing the conversation, it's not entirely relevant to the subject introduced by me. KW]
Although it probably is quite wrong to reduce the Catholic Church to its positions on human sexuality, you must be aware that there’s more to it than that for Rice personally: her son is “gay,” and she has probably heard a lot of Roman Catholic rhetoric about his “intrinsic disorder,” and probably presumed that most Cathoics and certainly the leadership of the Church buy into. For her, I assume it must eventually have come to seem like a choice between her religion (not her “relationship with Christ”) and her son. So you can’t fault her for making the choice she did; it’s her business and only her business, and the only reason she probably felt compelled to adverstise it was on account of her rather public “reconciliation” with the religion of her childhood some years ago.
“…buy into that “teaching of the Magisterium. For her..” etc.
Thanks for the comment Digby, and my apologies for it not appearing sooner. I noticed this morning that three comments (2 were yours) had been in moderation and had escaped my notice.