ARTICLES
July/August 2001 ARTICLES
Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
We received the following responses from Linda Pieczynski, media spokesperson for Call to Action, too late to be included in the article.
What in the Church do you think needs reform?
We believe that some of the problems today in the Church involve a consolidation of power in the curia which excludes our bishops, who are our teachers. For example, when the pope issued his decree regarding women's ordination, Cardinal Bernardin told me personally that neither he nor any other bishop in the world he knew had been consulted about the issue. Vatican II called for collegiality, which is increasingly absent in the curia's dealings with the bishops around the world. I've had bishops say to me that they feel more like branch managers of a corporation than leaders and teachers. We believe that laity and clergy should be consulted in the formulation of church doctrine and discipline, especially on human sexuality issues.
What are the criteria by which you judge the Church? (Scripture, tradition, the magisterium, sensus fidelium, etc.)
I don't believe we "judge" the Church (after all the People of God are the Church). I would have to say that we inform our consciences by a combinatio n of the above. The Scriptures are crucial, as is tradition. The statements of the magisterium are to be accorded great respect. The sensus fidelium must also be attended to; for example, the rejection of Arianism was largely due to the refusal by the mass of ordinary Christians to accept it despite the attempts by those in leadership to foist it on the people. John Henry Newman said that open, sustained dissent against an overwhelming preponderance of Church authority is the very instrument by which an erroneous doctrine is eradicated and the true tradition vindicated -- which is why the Nicene dogma prevailed in the fourth century against Arianism. Probably the greatest rejection of a proclamation in our time by the people of the church is the ban on artificial contraception. The majority of Catholics do not accept it, which raises the possibility that under the doctrine of reception, it is possibly in error. Only time will tell.
When a Catholic informs his or her conscience by studying all of these areas and, in a prayerful way, comes to the conclusion, for example, that the authorities are in error on the issue of, for example, women's ordination, my conscience demands that I not remain silent on what I believe is a great injustice. Cardinal Bernardin once gave me some very good advice, if it's of God, it will last; if not, it will fade away, and we have nothing to fear.
Call to Action refers often to the spirit of Vatican II. What in the Council documents encourages, or merely permits, the sort of reform you call for?
At Vatican II, Pope John XXIII challenged the bishops to take "a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way it is presented is another." The basic Christian truths do not change, but our understanding of them does.
Before the council, sin was never attributed to the Church as such, only to individuals within the Church. The council bishops insisted that the Church is "simultaneously holy and sinful, always in need of being purified and of incessantly pursuing the path of penance and renewal" (Lumen Gentium 8). The council said that the laity participates in the Church's mission through their baptism and confirmation, and not by clerical delegation. Indeed, the council urges all the clergy to see themselves as true servants of the laity, just as the laity should support the clergy.
Who are the members of Call to Action? Some charge that the membership is mostly made up of former priests and sisters and current and past church employees. Is this an accurate picture?
No, this is not at all accurate. About 25 percent of our organization are presently sisters and priests, including some bishops. The rest are lay people like myself who have never been in religious life, but are life-long Catholics. I attended Catholic grammar school, high school, college, and law school. We are actively involved in our churches and many are church employees and many are involved in lay ministry. Most of us are involved in volunteer work.
Some have said that the growth of Call to Action during the 90s represented an influx of folks who were also members of other Church reform groups. Is this true, or has Call to Action grown because it has recruited folks who were previously unaligned with such groups? Has it made "converts," in other words?
Many of our members are interested in the issues of the groups like FutureChurch, CORPUS and the Women's Ordination Conference. However, it is more likely they would join those groups as a result of being a member of Call to Action than vice versa. The biggest influx of new members was a result of two major media events, the 60 Minutes profile of Call to Action in 1994, and the excommunication of the Lincoln, Nebraska members by Bishop Bruskewitz. People who never heard of us sought us out as a result of those stories. I find that people join because they meet a Call to Action member, begin talking about their unhappiness over issues regarding the treatment of women or disagreement regarding certain issues involving sexuality, and find out about our organization. Many people who read the National Catholic Reporter also tend to gravitate toward our organization. I get stopped all the time in the courthouse where I practice by people who have seen me on TV or in the paper and encourage me to keep up my efforts. There is a lot of silent resentment over the women's ordination issue by both men and women, especially as we face the priest shortage.