Changes in life, changes in our Church
As the heading indicates our group continued but broadened their discussion of the changes in our church. The discussion was lively and included such topics as the changes instituted by Vatican II, nuns changing their habits, providing ministries other than teaching in the Catholic schools; priests not saying the rosary, and women priests; topics that bubble up just under the surface for many Catholics.
As a result of this conversation I would offer two points that might serve as a way to frame our conversations. The first deals with that fact that we are inescapably part of our times. If we listen to the words we use, we often can detect those times. For example before the session got started Rosemarie mentioned her interest in purchasing an iPad. Now we know or can know the iPad is an Apple product that didn’t exist just a few short years ago. What is true of the word “iPad” is true of all words. They have a beginning even though we may not always be able to date them. Scripture scholars attempt to use the words in the Bible to help date the time of the writing. It should be clear that their time and our time are not the same time. It’s critical to recognize this fact in its detail; often it is the notes covering our reading that do just that.
A second observation stems from the fact that whenever we talk we frequently use two quite distinct types of statements; statements of facts and statements of value. An example of these two types of statements was provided by Don. See if you can detect the differences in two statements I selected from his take on the recent changes in our liturgy. At one point he said, “… It seemed like when they first changed from the Latin to the English they used some of these same words that they’re changing back to.” A little later he added, “I don’t know they’re making a big deal of it [the changes in the liturgy] but it’s where it’s suppose to be …”
It’s one thing to ask whether the specific words that were used in the first effort to translate the liturgy from Latin to English are the same words that the liturgy is now using. That question is a matter of fact. We can have only one of three possible responses; yes with or without qualifications, no with or without qualifications, or I don’t know. But it is quite another matter to discuss whether the changes are “where it’s suppose to be.” Some people may consider that an evaluative statement and then the range of response are much different. I’m wondering if this distinction which means a lot to me, actually makes sense to you. For me Don’s “where it’s suppose to be…” is basically agreeing with the changes. But not every one agrees with the changes and their disagreement can be based on a disagreement on facts but it also might be because they disagree about the values expressed in the change. What’s your take on this?
To conclude I thought I would simply share some of the back and forth that actually occurred among the group members.
At first in response to the issue of the male dominated culture of the times in which the Bible was written, members talked about how women are 2nd class citizens with examples from Italy today, from the Middle East [Islamic countries], China, andJapan. I asked them what I think is the tougher question, are there examples at the local and even personal level.
Tim expressed his opinion that in not permitting women to be priests our church is not keeping up with the times which recognize the equality between men and women. Rosemarie didn’t agree. For her the male priesthood is part of the identity of the Catholic Church. She reflected that Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Saturday with the apostles who were all men. Tim wondered if that wasn’t just a cultural value and not a religious value. Rebecca responded by pointing out that there weren’t any black apostles or Asian apostles at the Last Supper. She wondered aloud why ethnicity is not an issue for our church but sex is? She then thought maybe she should not be in this group. Mark responded that he too struggles with some teachings, found the group “therapeutic” and hoped that Rebecca would come back. Rosemarie remarked that most of us have something we don’t agree with. There were many other participants – in fact the group started to laugh every time [maybe six times] I attempted to stop the conversation. But it mattered to the folks and that mattered to me.
These exchanges might give you a flavor for the conversation. We find them rich, respectful and want more not less of them. What would be your opinion?