A Response to Church-Despiser

One cultured despiser of the Church, brunogiordano, whom I suspect to be a member of Filipino Free Thinker, recently quoted a paragraph from Prof. Daniel Maguire, which highlighted among others that "(The Catholic Church) has a strong 'pro-choice' tradition and a conservative anti-choice tradition. Neither is official and neither is more Catholic than the other."

Prof. Maguire sent two pamphlets--(1) "The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion"; and (2) "A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage"-- to the US bishops urging them to listen to the voice of Theologians and the wisdom of the laity (sensum fedilium). These two voices--the theological magisterium (teachings of the theologians) and sensus fedilium (experience-fed and graced-wisdom of the faithful)-- can complement and correct the hierarchical magisterium (teachings of the Pope and the bishops).

***

I may not share some of the moral teachings of Professor Daniel Maguire, a former Jesuit priest who has been vocal in his views on various contentious  sexual morality issues--contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, and other ethical concerns like euthanasia, homosexual rights, assisted suicide, and embryonic-stem-cell research--which placed him head-on to the Church leaders in the United States, but I admire and respect his progressive outlook on Christian moral theology.

Prof. Maguire is one of the children of Vatican II whose Catholic view is now largely considered as progressive, in contrast with the restorationist conservative bloc dominating the Vatican now. Like Hans Kung, Prof. Maguire is consistent in his ethical teachings and aggressively promotes them to the point of sending two pamphlets to all of the Catholic bishops in the United States: (1) "The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion"; and (2) "A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage" which prompted the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to denounce his teaching as "non-Catholic"-- meaning, Prof. Maguire's teaching do not represent the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As you have quoted above, Prof. Maguire wrote: "(The Catholic Church) has a strong 'pro-choice' tradition and a conservative anti-choice tradition. Neither is official and neither is more Catholic than the other." This statement is actually a challenge, a protest, against the teaching authority of the bishops. USCCB replied: "It is a serious error ... to claim that the teaching of the pope and the bishops represents merely one voice among many legitimate voices within the Catholic Church, all of which are vying to be heard and accepted." The Archbishop of Milwaukee, in his regular weekly column "Herald of Hope" in The Catholic Herald (2006), affirmed "that the views expressed by Professor Maguire in his two pamphlets are erroneous and incompatible with the Church's teaching." 

What was more interesting in this "ad intra religious debate" was the response of the Jesuit university where Prof. Maguire teaches moral theology for decades.  Marquette University agreed with the doctrine committee that the views in the pamphlets "do not represent the teachings of the Catholic Church" but also reminded the USCCB that Maguire's views do not represent the views of the university. It further said: "As a citizen, Dr. Maguire has a right to express his views on the issues of the day... As a tenured professor, he also has rights related to his academic discipline." For this support, Prof. Maguire was grateful to the Jesuit university for "defending (his) academic freedom for 35 years." 

Closer to home, we have a Jesuit priest Joaquin Bernas, whose view may not be as radical but progressively sensible as Maguire in opposition to the stand of the Church on RH Bill in Congress. Father Bernas also enjoys the support of his superiors and the university. In fact, the support for the RH Bill by the Ateneo faculty also marked the pluralist nature of the Catholic tradition, particularly the affirmation of sensus fidelium. Funny but true, even anti-Church Filipino atheists (e.g. Filipino Free Thinkers) believed in what Fr. Bernas said on the matter and used his arguments in support of their permanent attack (with or without the RH Bill) against the Catholic church.

My long response above was intended to orient the readers of the current status of author of your copy pasted paragraph from one of the pamphlets of Prof Dan Maguire. Now let me point out some observations on how you dealt on the assertion of Prof Maguire:

(1) I disagree with your assessment that the Philippine Catholic Church is moving towards a more progressive Church. On the contrary, the reform of the reforms movement of the conservative bloc in Vatican under the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI has become more aggressive in its restorationist agenda. 

(2) The conservatives are also known as the traditional members of the Church. They usually hold power in the Vatican, particularly the Roman Curia. They managed to appoint bishops with conservative tendencies in the local Churches. To group together the conservatives with the fundamentalists shows how uninformed you are. For example, Pope Benedict XVI rejected the creationist reading of Genesis by the fundamentalists.

(3) It is interesting that you predicted the growth of the liberal progressive Catholics. I preferred to use the term liberal progressive Catholics to those with clear understanding of the Church, like theologians, philosophers and pastoral workers. Without prejudice, I exclude those Catholics who criticized the bishops and despised the Church because of the scandal of a few members of the hierarchy-- like gay priests/bishops, child abusers, and corrupt priests/bishops. It is frustrating how these cultured despisers (e.g. atheists, antitheists, agnostics, anti-church advocates) used the legitimate theological works of the progressive theologians to promote their highly suspicious and ideological agenda against the Church. 

(4) The challenge of the Church in our century and in the coming years is pluralism. The conservative bloc in the Church attempted to regress to the old grandeur of the Church as Mother and Teacher of truth in order to assert continuity and legitimacy of the orthodoxy. Thus, in so doing, become more defensive in its relation with the world. The progressives will always be there to remind them that aggiornamento, renewal and openness to the world, in the spirit of dialogue, is the path that liberates and invigorates the Church. 

In one of the annual gatherings of Catholic Faith Defenders, the bishop reminded the participants:

While it is clear however, that fidelity needs to have a center- which we acknowledge, is the Lord- it is crucial to acknowledge that our Church, through which we got to know the Lord, while being divine is also a human institution and a product of history. And, being a human institution, the Church is subject to the activities of men and women, to power struggles among kings and emperors, and even among bishops and priests. It cannot be denied, then, that through history, mistakes and errors have been made.

A Catholic Faith Defender member who reproduced the talk of the bishop highlighted his major statements but did not include this humbling yet profound reminder for the defenders of the faith. To my mind, this is the core message that every member of the CFD must understood by heart.