Miscellaneous Thoughts on Difficult Church Teaching and the Holy Spirit

Deacon Douglas McManaman

I remember one of my email correspondences with Eve Tushnet, who is the brilliant author of Gay and Catholic and Tenderness. I had written a piece for my students which was an attempt to support and explain as clearly and pastorally as possible the Church’s teaching on same sex marriage. We certainly see eye to eye on this issue, because she adheres to Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage and sexuality, but I didn’t quite “seal the deal” for her with respect to my contention that a same-sex relationship cannot be a one flesh union (in that a one flesh union means becoming reproductively one organism in the sexual act). My article left her unconvinced. In the end, she stressed the importance of urging students to “trust the Church”– and by this I gather she did not mean trust in a group of male celibates, many of whom–she is fully aware–have proved themselves to be untrustworthy. Rather, I believe she meant trust that Christ is working in and through the Church. I found it interesting not to mention praiseworthy that she finds it in herself to trust Catholic teaching, despite what she sees as a weakness in what I see as the heart of the matter.[1] 

I’ve written quite a few articles over the years (600+), many of which have vanished from memory. On a few occasions I stumbled across some of these forgotten articles and after reading some of them over again, I wondered to myself how I was able to acquire certain insights, given that I did not know then what I know now, and yet what I wrote then was in perfect agreement with what I have come to know now only as a result of experience. It’s not that I have the charism of infallibility–there are many articles I’d written that I would like to remove from the internet permanently, but I don’t have the nerve to ask the editors to remove them after they put time and effort into publishing them. But despite my stupidity, limitations, sinfulness, and other imperfections, the Holy Spirit seemed to have helped me say what I otherwise would not have been able to think of saying, for the sake of my students. 

In 1980, upon discovering that the Catholic Church teaches that contraceptive means of birth control are morally wrong, I became very interested in why that is the case, because at first it struck me as terribly out of date and closed minded. I was fortunate that some of my professors did not think so and encouraged me to think about it more. I remember where I was standing in Waterloo, Ontario when the light bulb went on (Waterloo and Phillip), the moment I believe I came to see why contraception is morally problematic. From that point on, I was determined to uncover the reasons for this so that I could explain this difficult teaching to others, especially my future students. Initially, I found the explanations of many who defended Humanae Vitae to be rather unsatisfactory; I knew they would not persuade skeptics that taking the pill or wearing a condom or sterilization (for contraceptive reasons) is morally wrong, while NFP can be legitimate and morally justifiable. It was only after meeting Dr. Joseph Boyle in Toronto that I discovered what I thought was the most persuasive and logically coherent presentation on why every marital act must remain open to new life and what that meant. I worked hard to make this intelligible for my young students and taught this over the years. Their reaction was very much like their reaction to Leibniz’s modal proof of God’s existence (If MLp, then Lp, or “If the Necessary Being is possible, then the Necessary Being exists”) – some students simply did not understand it, others understood it but found it uncompelling, while a minority understood it and found it compelling. 

I am not an “all or nothing” thinker. I don’t believe that if a person gets something wrong over here in this area, then they cannot be trusted in what they say over there in that area. I do love Hans Kung, for example, especially when he writes on the Reformation, Luther, Erasmus, and Vatican II, but I have never been able to understand the issue he has with Catholic morality, specifically abortion, cohabitation, and contraception. And he’s not the only one whom I can study and enjoy in one area, but scratch my head when it comes to the difficulties they seem to have with these moral issues in particular. I’ve spent a great deal of time over the past 40 years studying the fundamentals of ethics only because I was a teacher of young adolescents, and you have to get morality right when you are teaching students of this age group. There’s only so much time in a day, and if one is devoting a great deal of time to the study of Church history, perhaps there isn’t much time left for ethics. Could that be the reason Kung and others appear to be a little off on sexual ethics? I don’t know for certain, but I wonder. 

John O’Loughlin Kennedy has written a brilliant, well-researched, and very interesting work entitled The Pope is the Curia and why it cannot listen. In it, he discusses the history surrounding Humanae Vitae, the work of the Birth Control Commission that was initiated by Pope John XXIII, not to mention a rather brilliant analysis of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Without knowing what I know now about sexual ethics and the nature of contraception, I could easily be persuaded by his presentation that Humanae Vitae was a complete disaster and the product of clerical stubbornness. But it was as a result of studying this issue for many years that I came to believe that the Church is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit; for in my mind there is no chance a bunch of celibates in Rome could have figured this out on their own, especially when the Western world was capitulating.

In 2009, I wrote an article for my students entitled A Concise Account of Why Women are Not Ordained, and it was just that, a concise summary of the reasons for the non-ordination of women. Seventeen years later, however, after exposure to a number of rather brilliant feminist thinkers, I am less than enthusiastic about this article and would not be inclined to use it or recommend it to students. Moreover, within my eighteen years as a Deacon, I have seen more than my fair share of clerical misogyny, especially in recent years. That is why I was inclined to write Thoughts on the Influence of Old Prejudice, which began with an account of an experience I had one day that to me suggested some interesting things about the psychology of prejudice and unconscious bias. Naturally, I began to wonder whether the Church’s position on the non-ordination of women could turn out to be little more than a residue of centuries of old prejudice (misogyny) and patriarchy. But, could Kennedy’s brilliant and critical analysis of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in this same work turn out to be similar to his historical analysis of Humanae Vitae in the sense that reason and common sense at this time would lead to one obvious conclusion, while the Holy Spirit working in and through the hierarchy lays down the contrary conclusion, despite the weakness of the hierarchy’s arguments supporting it? In other words, in my mind, one side wins the argument hands down, at least up to this point in time, namely the side that argues that the exclusion of women from Holy Orders is indefensible. Could it be the case that the Holy Spirit–who works in and through the Magisterium made up, in part, of limited, even self-centered, privilege guarding prima donnas [2] scattered among a good number of genuinely holy and wise prelates–has led the Church, through that hierarchy, to the right position, despite the fact that the side arguing for the ordination of women puts forth the better arguments, while the other side scrapes for reasons that in the end come across as tortured and as durable as a thin water balloon? I’d have to say that it is indeed possible and highly plausible. If it can happen in my own individual life, how much more so in the life of the Church as a whole? 

Perhaps this is ultimately a matter of trusting that the Holy Spirit does indeed work in and through a Church made up of flawed individuals. As Eve Tushnet said in that same email correspondence to me: “In the end our faith is not founded on whether we accept the arguments we’ve heard for particular doctrines, you know? It’s founded on a personal relationship with Christ as given to us through His Bride the Church, our Mother and Teacher.”[3] And I do believe that at this time in our history, it is better not to say “trust the Church”, only because for many people that conjures up images of having to trust a bunch of men, many of whom are emotionally abusive, negligent, self-centered, sometimes haughty and incompetent. It is much better to say “trust in the Holy Spirit” that descended upon the Church at Pentecost, who is the “soul of the Church”, the “spirit of truth” (pneuma tes aletheias) and who will lead the Church to the complete truth (Jn 16, 13), certainly through our efforts but despite our dullness of intellect. 

Of course, this does not mean that Church teaching does not develop and that her current understanding of certain theological matters must remain forever unchanged. Nor does it mean that her common teaching that is not a constituent part of the deposit of faith but may pertain to it is irreversible. Much less does it mean we must resign ourselves to current ecclesial structures and practices that may stifle the Spirit (1 Th 5, 19) – structures and practices have changed throughout history and will continue to change, albeit rather slowly. And so, we still need theology to push the envelope and test certain hypotheses, for it is not always clear what does and does not belong to the deposit of faith [4]. That is why open discussion (Synodality) is utterly important–shutting it down retards the development of doctrine and only harms the Church, especially the prospects of ecumenical unity.  

But Jesus did say “I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mt 28, 20). What does this mean if not that despite our own limitations, short sightedness, intellectual sluggishness and incompetence, somehow collectively as a body he will not allow us to be led astray on the most important issues. In this case it is not so much a matter of grace building on nature, but grace superseding nature, as it were, that is, overcoming nature if you will. The gates of hell will not prevail against it (ekklesian), he said (Mt 16, 18). How can he err in that promise? In the end, the Spirit has to win out, otherwise what good is that promise?

Notes

1. She very wisely wrote: “I personally didn’t think you quite “sealed the deal” on why a same-sex relationship can’t be a one-flesh union; or at least, if the reason for that is, “‘one-flesh union’ refers to becoming a biologically-reproductive organism,” I don’t then know why only biologically-reproductive organisms can offer one another complete love. It seems to me that we have often seen examples of deep, self-sacrificing love, e.g. during the AIDS crisis in gay communities, where there did not seem to be any love held back, if you see what I mean, among those who nursed their partners through their last days. Or their friends–sex seems neither necessary to a full gift of self, nor in some visible way deleterious to it. Service is a way of loving someone with your body, I think….But I do think it would help advance the purposes of your speech to just give a defense of obedience! Basically tell your students that it is actually ok if they and/or the people they shepherd don’t understand the reasons for specific commands, as long as they understand why the Church is worthy of our complete trust. That in itself is a big ask, esp nowadays when we all know how untrustworthy so many Catholics have been.” Eve Tushnet, email message to author, March 14, 2022.

2. Pope Francis writes: “There should be no place in the Church for a worldly mentality. The worldly mentality says: “This man took the ecclesiastical career path, he became a bishop”. No, no, in the Church there must be no place for this mindset. The episcopate is a service, not an honour to boast about. Being a bishop means keeping before one’s eyes the example of Jesus who, as the Good Shepherd, came not to be served, but to serve (cf. Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45) and to give his life for his sheep (cf. Jn 10:11). Holy bishops — and there are many in the history of the Church, many holy bishops — show us that this ministry is not sought, is not requested, is not bought, but is accepted in obedience, not in order to elevate oneself, but to lower oneself, as Jesus did who “humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8). It is sad when one sees a man who seeks this office and who does so much just to get there; and when he gets there, he does not serve, he struts around, he lives only for his own vanity.” General Audience. Wednesday, 5 November, 2014. The following year Francis wrote: “Remembering that you have been chosen from among men and constituted on their behalf to attend to the things of God, exercise the priestly ministry of Christ with joy and genuine love, with the sole intention of pleasing God and not yourselves. It is unseemly when a priest lives for his own pleasure and “struts like a peacock!” Homily of His Holiness Pope Francis. Vatican Basilica, Fourth Sunday of Easter, 26 April 2015.

3. Tushnet, email message, March 14, 2022.

4. “On January 24th Cardinal Ratzinger offered an important clarification regarding the CDF Responsum, specifying that it did not intend to say that this teaching was a part of the deposit of faith but rather that it pertained to the deposit of faith. This ambiguity resulted in part from poor English translations of the Latin”. Richard Gaillardetz. “Infallibility and the Ordination of Women”, Louvain Studies 21 (1996): 3-24.