The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBishops: It's time to cut loose
by Kate Childs Graham on Jan. 28, 2010
Most weekends, I wake up early and tip-toe downstairs before my partner stirs. I flip open my computer and browse through the instant play selections on Netflix, hunting to find a movie to check off my never-seen/must-see list. Last weekend, the selection was "Footloose."
Now, before we get up-in-arms about what a crime it is that I've never seen this classic, just breathe deep and try to understand that the film came out the year I was born. It is but a tragic accident that my appreciation for the genius of Kevin Bacon and John Lithgow is only now being realized.
And for those of you sorry saps who are where I was just days ago and have yet to view the screen-splendor of "Footloose," be ware, this article contains a few spoilers.
As I settled in and waited for the video to buffer, I was fully prepared to indulge in the cheesy tunes, ridiculous (and yet constantly reoccurring) styles and gymnasticized dancing of the 1980s. I wasn't prepared, however, to find myself hooked by the film's plotline.
Ren McCormack is a teenager who moves from Chicago to a small town where the local government banned dancing and rock music, with the fierce support of the town's pastor, Rev. Shaw Moore. Rev. Moore's son, you see, had died in a car accident on his way home from a night of drinking and rock-and-roll. Adamant that his daughter would not meet the same fate, Rev. Moore preached that rock-and-roll music and dancing were merely a gateway to "easy sexuality and relaxed morality."
Ren then decides that the school should have a senior dance. But first, he must convince the town council and Rev. Moore. At a town council meeting, Ren reads from the Bible, quoting scripture passage after scripture passage that encourages dancing. In the end, Rev. Moore supports the dance. From the pulpit, he makes this speech:
I'm standing up here before you today with a very troubled heart. You see, my friends I've always insisted on taking responsibility for your lives. But, I'm really like a first-time parent who makes mistakes and tries to learn from them. And like that parent I find myself at that moment when I have to decide: do I hold on or do I trust you to yourselves?
Let go and hope that you've understood at least some of my lessons. If we don't start trusting our children how will they ever become trustworthy?
And that got me thinking, what could "Footloose" teach the leaders of the Catholic church?
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Rev. Moore's impetus for banning dance and rock-and-roll was full of good intentions. He wanted to stop the town's teens from being hurt -- a laudable effort. Much like Rev. Moore, I believe that many church teachings, particularly around gender, sex and sexuality, began with good intentions. In excluding women from leadership, for instance, the bishops of yore were aspiring to do what they thought Christ would do (though I believe Christ would have done exactly the opposite). And you can't blame them for that.
Quickly though, Rev. Moore's good intentions transformed into wielding power for the sake of power. He himself even lost sight of why he stood so firmly opposed to something he once enjoyed. But he thought that letting go, admitting he was wrong, would show signs of weakness. The church hierarchy has been in this position, too. Their unwillingness to reverse their teaching on condom use for people living with HIV is but one example. At some point it's no longer about protecting people, it's about the fear of losing power and seeming weak.
Ultimately, Rev. Moore is able to release his fear-filled grip -- and cut loose, if you will -- because he realized that by ignoring the wants and needs of the people, he was driving a wedge between himself and those he served. There is no doubt in my mind, and the number of people leaving the church confirms, that the church hierarchy's unwillingness to revamp its teachings on gender, sex and sexuality is driving a wedge between the hierarchy and the faithful.
Rev. Moore was able to cut loose from his distrust and power. And it's not that everyone's lives were perfect because of it, because not every choice is the right one. It's that in cutting loose everyone is free to follow their conscience. And that type of trust brings a community together.
Bishops, perhaps it's time to cut loose.
And, so you'll have it in your head all day (if you don't already), I'll leave you with this:
Kate Childs Graham writes for ReligionDispatches.org and YoungAdultCatholics-Blog.com. She also serves on the Women’s Ordination Conference board of directors and the Call to Action Next Generation Leadership Team.
What a nice way of putting
What a nice way of putting it. The sad truth is that there is really little that is redeeming of their attitude as Ms Graham offers.
Her essay brought back to mind a little book, published in 1961, by a Marc Oraison, D.D.,M.D., titled, curiously, "Love or Constraint". and yes, it even has a "nihl obstat" and "imprimatur". It is essentially about religious education acknowledging the maturation and learning process of the human person, as opposed to the imposition of an external code. In other words, the lesson of "Footloose".
I suspect that the history of revolutions turning oppressive and excessively violent is similar. The very people who are prepared to die to escape enslavement may well not have developed the capacity to live with/by it.
One might well reflect upon the fourth century "battle" between Augustine of Hippo, sainted of course, and his and the Church's foe, Pelagius (loser and declared heretic of course).
While the public issue (the straw man) was about original sin, the essence was about the "abnegation,mortification and self-denial" of Augustine, the "emptying of self" and self gift to God through Church or, according to Pelagius the discipline of "self-ordering", becoming, as any US Marine would understand: "the best we can be" that returns self and creation back to the creator.
It is not simply an 'either/or' but I ask this question: If I acknowledge that I am nothing, worse, as "dung", and divest myself of all that is human and submit wholly to the Church what is left of "being made in the image and likenss of God" to give back?
It really all about trust, love, risk or should I say "faith, hope and charity". The Bishops won, Pelagius lost, so did we.
The obvious difference is the
The obvious difference is the Catholic Church clearly teaches that she is infallible in her teachings on faith and morals (see Vatican II doc, Lumen Gentium, p. 25) where as the character of Rev. Moore is not.
Even if the author does not believe that or has a different interpretation, I wish she would have brought up the difference in the article.
The real problem with most
The real problem with most Church teaching is that we have no well articulated doctrine of episcopal and papal fallibility. We only have history, and the "true believers" of the right and the left too easily read the past as if it were the present.
Infallibility is a classic example. Vatican I and Vatican II are both based on Trent. The problem with Trent, despite all the good it did, is that it clearly was not ecumenical. Why? Because, the bishops of the East were never invited. And we were in as much schism from them as they were from us.
Modesty and a sense of care for their people by those exercising authority would seem to be more consonant with what we know of the attitude of Jesus toward it. And he was, I do believe, the incarnation of God. The same can hardly be said of those who claim to act with an authority which he seems to have roundly disdained.
READ HISTORY!! - or, "you say
READ HISTORY!! - or, "you say absolute, I say relative - but do we call the whole thing off"?
One thing I learned when I went through the Ignatian Exercises with a Jesuit at Rockhurst College was that (first and foremost) we sorted out who we (creatures) and God (Creator)are. To say that the Church is "infallible" is "laughable" (pardon my assonance). It took us 385 years to assemble a canon of scripture; it took numerous councils to decide if Jesus was human or divine or both. It wasn't until the 12th century that priests were forced to remain celibate and need I mention the intellectual embarassment of the Index of Prohibited Books, Encyclicals denouncing "modernity" and "democracy", or (for a more pedestrian, yet humorous example), my mother frantically searching for some kleenex in the glove compartment because she forgot her veil at home. My point is that Ratzinger's Relativity Rants are hardly credible when the Church has (on numerous occasions) rewritten the missal, targeted "gays" and the ordination of women as convenient (but not plausible) diversions in the tragic wake of the clerical sexual abuse crises - just think of Cardinal Law lounging in the majestic trappings of Saint Mary Maggiore - quelle punishment!! You do understand that if we kept the same rule book century after century and the Magisterium controlled the game plan, the Renaissance nor the Enlightment would never have happened.
And now we have a modern-day inquisition (investigation) of Religious Women (many of whom do not wish to retreat to the Bells of St. Mary's). Okay Rome, is the world in such a mess because of gays, women, religious women, the mass in English? Why don't you start worrying about other things like poverty, hunger, disease, and those other little nasty social justice issues instead of wondering if Jesus drank from a Chalice (ha!) or a cup at the last supper.
Well, its like someone said about institutions that get calcified and refuse to change - instead of coming out with a new edition of their book - they simply change the preface. Let's be humble enought to admit that we don't corner the market on truth and maybe (just maybe) people will stop leaving the Church and listen to an intellectually and spiritually honest discussion about revelation and the Holy Spirit - haven't heard one of those homilies in a while.
Pax Christi,
Rick in Kansas City
Dear Rick in KC: Loved your
Dear Rick in KC: Loved your post. While we are on the subject of "relativity" and, I'll slip in, "modernism", I came across a vatican based letter, authored by a Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (July 24, 2003) that gave the definitive regulations with regards to the minimum gluton content requirements for host material. I really do think that Jesus had some things to say about this type of thing.
Excellent commentary, Rick in
Excellent commentary, Rick in KC.
The Catholic Church does not
The Catholic Church does not actually have a teaching against the use of condoms to restrict the spread of AIDS or other diseases as New Zealand Bishop Cullinane aptly pointed out in a guest editorial in the NZ Catholic newspaper.
http://www.pn.catholic.org.nz/dox/Bishops/More%20Catholic%20than%20the%2...
What was taught by Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. That teaching does not mean that the Church will never have the power to ordain women.
God Bless
Go and read what Pope
Go and read what Pope Benedict has said on this matter. With all due respect to the good Bishop of Palmerston North in New Zealand, I'll side with what His Holiness — y'know, the Vicar of Christ — has to say.
Kate, Excellent article. I
Kate,
Excellent article. I have often thought about this double-bind the Church continues to find herself in. For example, during the Vatican II discussion on liturgical reform, the opposition voiced this very bind stating, "What will the faithful think when they start seeing the unchanging Church changing?"
Where is the dynamic Church instituted by Christ? But even more important...where is the humility?
So what should the bishops
So what should the bishops stop teaching--that all life is sacred, that Jesus is the Christ, that ordination is reserved for men, that marriage is between one man and one woman?
Yes. Because Kevin Bacon
Yes. Because Kevin Bacon said so.
Kate said: “But [Rev. Moore]
Kate said: “But [Rev. Moore] thought that letting go, admitting he was wrong, would show signs of weakness. The church hierarchy has been in this position, too. Their unwillingness to reverse their teaching on condom use for people living with HIV is but one example. At some point it's no longer about protecting people, it's about the fear of losing power and seeming weak.”
And the Vatican’s handling of the Birth Control Commission is a bigger and clearer example. John Ford, the American theologian who authored the minority report against contraception was honest and forthright. Effectively he argued:
• There is no unambiguous proof from scripture or natural law that birth control is intrinsically evil, regardless of context.
• Nonetheless, the former position that contraception is against the natural law must be retained because previous popes has said so, and we just can’t admit papal error without dire consequences.
And none of the theologians or hierarchs on the Commission was able to contest Ford’s concession that there is no unassailable argument demonstrating contraception to be an intrinsic evil.
I am intrigued by Kate’s strong assertion: “There is no doubt in my mind, and the number of people leaving the church confirms, that the church hierarchy's unwillingness to revamp its teachings on gender, sex and sexuality is driving a wedge between the hierarchy and the faithful.”
I am inclined to agree that an unacceptable sexual morality is a major cause of the continuing exodus our youth, but I see this as somewhat indirect.
Large numbers do no say “I disagree with the teaching on sex, so I am leaving.” Rather, the magisterium’s position on gender and sexuality is at odds with young people’s experience, and so the church loses credibility in their minds. If the church is dead wrong about something I do understand, then what credibility does it have for the primary tenets of our creed? And so they leave.
Understanding the phenomenon of leaving because of sexual morality as a two step process—losing credibility about sexual morality (which our young do understand) leads to lose of faith about more primal matters (which are more difficult to assess without theological training.)—might explain why sexual morality is not often listed as the reason for leaving.
Comments are solicited on this notion.
Dennis
Maybe I am reading Dennis
Maybe I am reading Dennis Galon's post erroniously. He seems to quote a theologian who issued a minority report on contraception that was “honest”, “forthright” and “effective”. Here is the quote:
“• There is no unambiguous proof from scripture or natural law that birth control is intrinsically evil, regardless of context.
• Nonetheless, the former position that contraception is against the natural law must be retained because previous popes has said so, and we just can’t admit papal error without dire consequences."
How can one hold to a tenet based upon “natural law” because of papal decree? If the authority is “religious” and there is no basis “in nature”, it is not natural law? Or am I missing something?
I have a problem also with this “natural law” thingie. Metaphysics makes more sense. “Laws” of physics, chemistry; “rules” of ethics; imperatives of morality; laws enacted by legitimate authority, but “norms” and predictables whether in nature or in horse races do not constitute “laws”. To say that the management of conception is against a “natural law” and especially, because “I say so”, seems to me to be the counter intelligent.
"At some point it's no longer
"At some point it's no longer about protecting people, it's about the fear of losing power and seeming weak."
Have you read anything Pope Benedict has written? I am not asking that to be snarky, mean-spirited, or sneaky. I am really just asking. I mean just read "God and the World," "Salt of the Earth," "The Spirit of the Liturgy," or "Introduction to Christianity." After reading that, as well as his encyclical on hope, I think you are completely wrong. What is up with all the strawmen arguments that so many of NCR's writers put up? I keep hearing things like "people who want the TLM are blindly nostalgic!" or "Pope Benedict thinks he's perfect and wants power!" (well the perfect part was only in one commenters post admittedly). A simple reading of anything the Pope has written or reading a magazine like Latin Mass Magazine would easily disprove any of these assertions.
And Latin Mass is the "Gospel
And Latin Mass is the "Gospel Truth?" Didn't hear that last week at Mass.
Did you even read what I
Did you even read what I wrote?! I was talking about Latin Mass MAGAZINE. I was citing that magazine to disprove the distortions of people like myself who support Pope Benedict's liturgical renewal.
Benedict can talk the talk,
Benedict can talk the talk, but that's not what I object to. He doesn't, or can't, walk his talk. Which is why he bends over backwards for the traditional right while ignoring or attacking the left. He's at heart a follower not a leader. A leader dialogues with opposition, a follower obediently attacks.
And what dialogue do you
And what dialogue do you suggest His Holiness should have? Married Priests? Had it. Female Priests? Had it. Artificial birth control? Had it? Same Sex Marriage? Had that one too. The truth is those on the left, as you describe them, aren't interested in dialogue they are interested in the very thing you accuse Pope Benedict of, power. The will to power to assert their view on the Church.
We've already had all these dialogues and the Church stands firm on these decisions and doctrines which are rooted in Scripture, Tradition, and Natural Law. I understand things aren't the way you want them, but constantly bashing the Pope makes you guilty of detraction. Nobody wants that.
Are we really having this conversation because somebody watched Footloose? This truly is the height of intellectual discourse.
Jeff, in almost all the cases
Jeff, in almost all the cases you cite the dialogue was between Vatican clerics. There was zero engagement with the laity the Church supposedly exists to serve. The one and only time there was real lay involvement was on Pope Paul's Birth Control Commission and as this unintellectual article points out Paul decided following a previous pope was more important and Christ like than leading the Church into the future.
One can not control the future from the past. That's too is natural law. Jesus didn't reaffirm past Temple teachings. He gave us an entirely new understanding of humanity and humanities place in the world.
The hot button issues you mention are all seriously entwined with the feminine and the feminine place in the world. They are about keeping the feminine in it's historically defined place, which is subordinate to the masculine.
I see these as choice and opportunity issues, not power issues. As a mother, that is what I really desire for my child--as much choice and opportunity as possible. I could care less if those choices result in 'power'. My job is to model and teach the principles of making good choices. My job is to not enforce or make those choices. Especially for an adult child.
Holy Mother Church is in some respects an oxymoron. The official Church is neither feminine nor maternal. Calling itself so doesn't make it true.
"Ren reads from the Bible,
"Ren reads from the Bible, quoting scripture passage after scripture passage that encourages dancing."
Ren: [addressing the town council, reading from his notes in the Bible] "From the oldest of times, people danced for a number of reasons. They danced in prayer... or so that their crops would be plentiful... or so their hunt would be good. And they danced to stay physically fit... and show their community spirit. And they danced to celebrate." And that is the dancing we're talking about. Aren't we told in Psalm 149 "Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song. Let them praise His name in the dance"? And it was King David - King David, who we read about in Samuel - and what did David do? What did David do?
[paging frantically through Bible]
Ren: What *did* David do?
[audience laughs]
Ren: "David danced before the Lord with all his might... leaping and dancing before the Lord."
[smacks table in front of Reverend Moore]
Ren: *Leaping* and *dancing*.
[stands up straight]
Ren: Ecclesiastes assures us... that there is a time for every purpose under heaven. A time to laugh... and a time to weep. A time to mourn... and there is a time to dance. And there was a time for this law, but not anymore. See, this is our time to dance. It is our way of celebrating life. It's the way it was in the beginning. It's the way it's always been. It's the way it should be now.
Well said Kate. What you say
Well said Kate. What you say is so true. You are fighting while still staying, thanks. Most people I know just quit without fighting and letting their voice be heard.
Let's pray the Holy Spirit will open the minds and hearts of those who lead and "serve" the people of God.
"...in cutting loose everyone
"...in cutting loose everyone is free to follow their conscience. And that type of trust brings a community together."
You're basing this on your worldly experience of how many years?
Poor John Courtney Murray is rolling over in his grave.
This is one of your best
This is one of your best articles, Katie! and I still can't believe you have not seen this movie before now.... one of MY all time favorites!
Keep up the good work!
I agree wholeheartedly. The
I agree wholeheartedly. The Holy Spirit does not act only through the magesterium but also through the people of God. If Rome continues to attempt to dominate the world via excommunicating those politicians who vote in line with the interests of ALL the people, not just the Catholics, we'll be looking at yet another schism. And if Rome continues as it has since John Paul II, I'll be part of the exodus.
VOTF, CTA, NCR, WOC--it's
VOTF, CTA, NCR, WOC--it's time to cut loose from what is holding you back from being members of Christ's Church!
I loved your article! You
I loved your article! You are great Kate!
Katie, it is refreshing to
Katie, it is refreshing to know that there are young people who are willing and able to see the bigger picture. You give us all something to think about and I appreciate that. It is too, bad that some reading your message and thoughts cannot allow the creativity and power of the Spirit to flow as well. I tis not a matter of defending as you are not accusing but challenging older catholics and those in leadership to reflect on power and purpose. And I beleive that if we are all honest we know that Jesus lived simply and did not feed into false piety. Simply put we are called to Live jsutly, love tenderly and walk humbly with God. Called to follow in the footsteps of Christ and heirarchial structures and power are not in those footsteps.
·
There is no doubt in my mind,
There is no doubt in my mind, and the number of people leaving the church confirms, that the church hierarchy's unwillingness to revamp its teachings on gender, sex and sexuality
You mean unlike the Episcopal Church, which has people joining in droves to celebrate the glories of gay sex? Oh wait, just the opposite is happening.
The stupid....it burns!
I do not usually comment on
I do not usually comment on this blog, or any blog, actually, but I have to say I was thunderstruck by this article. That Ms Childs Graham so facetiously seeks to dismiss the entire hierarchy and their modus operandi to hand on the teaching of Christ, as if she alone has understood how it really out to be done, is just appalling. Pride, pride, pride. And with the oblique reference to her partner, then, I mean really, especially after Manson's recent article on devotion, I am wondering what is up with the NCR's recent penchant for lesbians who are dismissive of the Church as representative of young voices in the Church today?! I have spent a lot of time trying to understand, from my POV as a 32 year old convert to the faith, why the commenters on this blog, who just go on ad nauseam about how they hate the hierarchy and everything it does, why do they bother? And since when do homosexual Ivy league university students who have chosen to prefer ideologies of liberalism over the truth of the Gospel representative of my Church? I was raised as an evangelical; I left them, but I certainly don't waste my time railing against what they teach. I am not bitter and hateful because of it. Thank God for the Magisterium of the CHurch and all of those curial types so maligned in these comments! If you hate being in communion with them so much, then why stay? I mean, really?
The Catholic Left is dying
The Catholic Left is dying out. The only young who are sticking around are those who uphold the Church's teaching. The meaninglessness of the current secular culture is self-sterilizing. Abortion, gay "marriage" etc. The future belongs to the orthodox. They are the only ones having kids.
Quote: In excluding women
Quote: In excluding women from leadership, for instance, the bishops of yore were aspiring to do what they thought Christ would do (though I believe Christ would have done exactly the opposite).
Actually, the bishops were doing what Christ DID. Kate, you don't have to imagine or ponder or theorize or guess what Christ did... it's right there in the Bible: Jesus didn't select any women as Apostles. And here's an excerpt from an article that appeared in This Rock (January 2002) that further explains it:
"Some say that he (Jesus) was bound by the cultural norms of his era to suppress the roles of women, but no one has been able to prove that this was his motive. Furthermore, this accuses Jesus of sexism and it paints an inaccurate portrait of Christ, who had no qualms about shattering the cultural norms regarding interaction with women (Matt. 9:20; Luke 7:37; John 4:27). The idea of priestesses was not unknown to him, since it was a common practice in religions of his time and culture, though not Judaism. (If Jesus had wanted women as priestesses, he would have had the ideal candidate in Mary. Here was a woman who could have spoken the words of consecration literally: "This is my body. This is my blood.")
There were other roles that Christ had in mind for women. For example, they played a key role in the spread of the Gospel, being the first to spread the news of the risen Christ. They were also allowed to pray and prophecy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), but they were not to assume the function of teaching in the Christian assembly (1Cor. 14:34–38; 1 Tim. 2:1–14), which was restricted to the clergy.
Television thoughts from a
Television thoughts from a child of television. Thanks, Katie! Pass the remote.
Our current books of the
Our current books of the Bible were chosen by a select group of people who excluded other books. Groups supporting the unselected books were considered heretics. In other words, we do not have all the information of Jesus's time just because we have the Bible. Look at the different accounts in the Gospels of the same event. So there may have been female apostles. The male hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is more tradition than anything else in my humble opinion.
Let me preface by saying that
Let me preface by saying that I am not a theologian although I have studied theology. It is my understanding that the books of the Bible were chosen by a select group of people. Those who supported the books which were excluded were considered heretics. My point is that the Bible is not the only source of information on the life and times of Jesus. Just look at the varying accounts of the same event in different Gospels. To be properly understood, the Bible must be read in context of both the writer and the audience.
So who is to say definitively that Jesus had no female apostles? I believe that he may have had at least one. The male hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is more tradition than anything else in my humble opinion.
Great post FSmith, I also
Great post FSmith,
I also don't bother commenting on NCR's blogs anymore. I don't know why they even retain their "C" for Catholic as there's nothing Catholic about most of what is written in NCR. Venom is spit on Bishops, the Holy Father and most Catholic dogma, especially anything to do with gender and sexuality.
As you say, why do these people remain in the Catholic Church? I think the answer is arrogance and pride since they assume they know better than the Church herself.
This must be very confusing for Catholics who are not grounded in their faith and believe the nonsense written here, especially when the writers are actually priests or nuns.
Dear Kate, you sound just so
Dear Kate, you sound just so beautiful, full of life exuberant and trusting.
I can't imagine how old you are. I only hope your trust is never betrayed by the Church you obviously love.
The cutting loose and living by your conscience, it just isn't as simple as it sounds being a Catholic which I presume you are.
The time will come (not may) when you must stand alone on that point at some time in your life.
Be strong and prayerful and say to yourself: if I was to die could I face my creator without going to confession?
That is the byline I reared my children buy.
Being a convert to Catholicism (34 years ago this Easter,) that was what the wonderful Salvation Army women who reared me ingrained upon my heart which I have never forgotten.
As a Catholic, my conscience is supposed to be formed by it's teachings and to be a teacher you have to be a witness.
I had a problem with what was being done in my name.
Which ever way it is for you I wish you a peaceful Lent and a Happy Easter.
It was a joy to read your article and I hope my little "sermonette" finds no offence with you. Lynnette Newington
Post new comment