From the Parish Newsletter

These two extracts are from the parish newsletter of a nearby parish (not my home parish). My commenting on them might appear that I am being critical of the priest involved - though I am doing my best to keep him anonymous unless you have seen the original newsletter. In some ways I try not to have a "critical blog". But, on the other hand, I feel that lay people are entitled to engage in a dialogue with their clergy. It is not fair, I think, to have a position that the clerical status of a parish priest means that they are in some way immune from or exempt from lay people responding to their pronouncements; and, if their statements are in the public arena, they cannot expect to be immune from response in the public arena. The obligation of charity is observed, I think, by focussing on the content, and not attacking the individual.

The first extract is from last week's newsletter, commenting on the election of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States.

Unlike the ordinary American, the people of God have no say in those who are supposedly "elected" to lead them. There is a "so-called" process of consultation but nobody knows what it is. In 1970, the Council of Priests of the diocese of Brentwood, authorised a survey among all the priests of the diocese about what kind of bishop we wanted. It was for the most part ignored. Instead of getting a bishop with vision, we got a kind, holy man who couldn't make a decision without phoning Cardinal Heenan first! One priest writing in the "Brentwood Survey" wrote the problem with the church is we have a "self perpetuating" system. Is it any wonder then that the young and not so young feel there is little they can do to bring about change. This is a sobering thought as we celebrate the Dedication of the Cathedral church of the Diocese of Rome, St John Lateran.

In one sense, it is quite right to see the Church as a self perpetuating system - in one aspect we might call it the Apostolic Succession, in another aspect it is the handing on of the tradition received from Christ himself, particularly in catechesis. However, it would be better expressed as saying that it is a God-sustained system - it is the action of the Holy Spirit that keeps the Church in faithfulness to its founder, Christ. It might also be better to refer to a life rather than a system. So the Church is a Spirit sustained life - a life that is the same now as it was in the past.

The reference to changing reminds me of the story a bishop told during a catechesis at the 2005 World Youth Day. His punchline was to refer to a young pilgrim in Cologne who, interviewed on television, observed that, no, it wasn't for the Church to change its teaching. It was us who needed to change, to live up to that teaching, so that we would therefore become more true to Christ. In this sense, there is everything we can do to bring about the change that we need, whether we are young, not so young, lay person or priest.

Now, is this really the sort of change that is implied or hinted at in this extract? [The bishop being referred to is not, I think, the present incumbent!]

In this week's newsletter, we have a story about two mountaineers in Peru. One of them fell and was injured. His friend did not leave him on the mountain, but helped him down the mountain. Part way down, a second accident happened and the uninjured climber then had to cut the rope supporting his injured friend in order to save himself. It would appear both survived, but the parish priest asks whether or not the two remained friends.

What a moral dilemma? What would you have done in the circumstances? I'm always suspicious of moral theologians who have clear cut solutions to every moral problem. Human beings are very complicated and, like my golf swing, there are so many variables that every set of circumstances needs looking at with the greatest of care.

I do think you can look at this paragraph and find no fault with its strictly expressed content. I do not think that any of us know for sure what we would do in a particular situation - we can only hope that we will act in a morally right way, in accordance with Catholic teaching, when we are put to the test. I doubt that any individual moral theologian has a clear cut solution to every moral problem, just as a matter of academic common sense; suspicion of a moral theologian who does claim that is probably quite justified! But (see below) that is not really to the point. Human beings are very complicated and each circumstance does need to be looked at carefully - my post today about Hannah Jones, for example, shows how characterising her choice as a "choosing to die rather than have a transplant" is to ignore a number of aspects of her case that alter one's judgement of her case. It is a truism - a statement of the obvious - so it doesn't move the argument forward.

So, it is not in the form of words themselves, but exactly what message is being communicated in this extract?

Is there a suggestion that, rather than there being objective moral absolutes, everything depends on the situation? One could certainly be forgiven for taking away from these remarks a certain hesitation about there being absolute rights and wrongs in our lives.

Pope John Paul II addressed precisely this question in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. There he clearly teaches that there are some actions that are always morally wrong, of their very nature, because of the way in which the go against the good of the human person. The deliberate and directly intended killing of another innocent person would be an example of one such action.

In all likelihood, there was no deliberately intended killing on the part of the uninjured climber in the story told in the newsletter. But that does not provide a ground for suggesting that there are no actions that are, of their nature, always morally wrong.