DEFENDING THE FAITH – A BISHOP SPEAKS OUT

The following is the edited text of a talk given by Bishop Kevin Manning of Parramatta at the Thomas More Centre Spring School in Sydney on 23 October 1999:

As Christians we commit ourselves in Baptism to the teachings of Jesus Christ, Who declared Himself the Way, the Truth and the Life. Today, the truth which He revealed is not so much openly denied, as it is relegated to one opinion amongst many. Church authority is not always publicly denied, rather, it is replaced by the authority of experts, opinion polls, subjective opinions, based on contemporary ethics, sociology and psychology. These are projected as substitutes for the truth.

Many of us have encountered Catholics who speak and act in a way that says: "God's Word, revealed by Scripture and developed by Tradition, is no longer the supreme authority." To challenge them is to be accused of being fundamentalist (a well-rehearsed putdown). Dare I suggest that some academics, speculative theologians and Scripture scholars assume an authority no less than that of a Pope or Bishop? The consequence is that the authoritative structure of the Church is replaced by a professedly democratic or, at times, a less than democratic, intellectual elite who suppress any attempt at a democratic voice.

Another question to be asked is whether much of the renewal undertaken (imposed?) since Vatican Council II has not seen personal preference supersede, in many ways, the Magisterium as the supreme interpreting authority for the Christian community. The evangelising thrust of the Church has been somewhat muted because individuals and communities have come to rely on their own interpretation of the Council's documents. "Lived experience" becomes the authoritative source of knowledge that governs actions and decisions. This replaces, rather than accepts the authoritative sources of Revelation.

Another insidious approach to undermining truth is to sow uncertainty and confusion by unrestrained questioning of the sources of revelation and truth. One such example is the "scientific" study of Scripture which brings with it uncertainty. It is well known that scientific statements are susceptible to change by further scientific investigations, so one can scarcely ever conclude that something is certain on scientific fact alone. Some of this uncertainty and ambiguity has infiltrated contemporary Catholic biblical studies and undermines the clarity and certainty which is a necessary foundation for fervent Christian life. The seriousness of this development cannot be underestimated.

Popular theologians

A problem can arise when popular theologians and experts who conduct "summer workshops" and "theological renewal seminars" are given ready access to the faithful, who are led by them to believe that their speculative opinions are legitimate. I do not discount the role of the speculative theologian. However, I do question his, or her, speculating in contexts where the uninitiated are unable to distinguish truth from personal opinion.

Some academics, under the guise of academic freedom, have made searching and questioning an art form. They appear to despise certainty, clarity and authority where God's word is concerned and adopt a position quite in keeping with contemporary secular culture so that all truth becomes suspect, and subjected to scepticism.

Equally destructive of our Faith is the relating of half-truths, or an ersatz form of truth. There are occasions when teaching, preaching, discussing, only touch certain parts of God's Word, those parts which can be easily accepted by the generality of Christians. I am speaking about one-sided input. We hear much about a "caring and sharing God", a God of compassion and mercy, a non-judgmental God; but not a great deal about the God of judgement and justice.

We hear ad nauseam how to develop our self-image and to feel good, but not often about the reality of sin, the need for repentance and conversion. We hear much about being gentle to ourselves and being beautiful people, but suggest preaching the truth of the Gospel to those who do not know Christ, and you will discover there are many opponents who ask what right you have to do so.

What happens is that the demanding, unpalatable aspects of the Gospel such as obedience, humility, and submission to God's Will are not mentioned, but replaced by half-truths which modern men and women easily accept.

Different disciplines of study, such as psychology and sociology, do have a part to play, but they can never bring certainty to their interpretations. Any form of speculation must ensure that what has previously been authoritatively held is never denied, or contradicted, but is developed and enriched consistent with previous formulations and interpretations.

Those who would suppress the Church's clear teachings are quite adept in their use of Marxist tactics when they portray the Church as the enemy of their enlightened ideas. Their first move is to discredit the Church's authority, by fostering confusion and disunity, infiltrating and enlisting followers to their cause. They cultivate people disposed to their mindset to unsettle others, and target people of influence within the Church. Their design is to undermine true teaching and substitute it with their own. The appeal is generally to humanitarian and "Christian" sensitivities like involvement in programmes for the poor, but never to devotion or worship. Church media outlets are especially targeted to publish – supposedly – Christian articles, and catechetical material, but really, information that is helpful to their cause.

Those opposed to their tactics are forced into silence by being criticised as unco-operative, reactionary, or opposed to the enlightenment. Secular humanists have instilled moral lukewarmness, and indifference, into the hearts of many, and have been successful in influencing lawmakers to reflect their goals. The secular humanist is implacably opposed to religious and moral beliefs, and attributes progress to man's own efforts.

Influence

Their influence can be detected within the Church even though they reject the divine and affirm man's autonomy. Like Marxists, they discredit Church authority and divide Catholics from their pastors and the Pope. Their aim is to render the Church ineffective. They greatly influence the communications media which, in most cases, has little respect for Catholic authority. Even Catholic publications can be affected by their influence.

They start out by inducing people to tolerate behaviour which is clearly deviant, e.g. homosexuality, and making it appear acceptable to traditional Catholic teaching. Their argument is that pluralist societies cannot do otherwise. Deviant behavior becomes normalised and Christian values appear abnormal, a threat to the pluralist society.

Some Catholics have become convinced that it is okay to pursue individual happiness at the expense of values which are central to Christian living, eg. fidelity to commitment, service to others, self-sacrifice for the common good. In the areas of marriage, secular influence has emerged in statements such as these: "The Church has no right to stop you remarrying", "You have every right to go to Communion, even if you are divorced – God wants you to be fulfilled", "The Church has changed its thinking, be mature and decide for yourself", "You have to do what you think is right".

It is not easy to keep on rebutting the challenge of the secular media, the secular academic or secularised government members. For some the inevitable result is to remain silent about their beliefs and go with the secular humanist flow. However, being made aware of this perverse influence alerts us to be on guard against it.

THE FIRST SIGN

Bishop Manning's words echo Our Lady's message to Fr Gobbi in January 1979.

TABERNACLE ISSUE TAKES CENTRE STAGE IN DISCUSSION

The current draft of a US bishops' document on Church art and architecture covers many topics in its 100 pages, but most bishops focused on the subject of tabernacle placement during their Nov. 18 discussion of the draft at their northern autumn general meeting in Washington.

Most of the 30-plus bishops who commented on "Domus Dei" ("House of God") referred to tabernacle placement, and most of those who remarked on it indicated their preference for a central placement where the faithful could easily see it upon entering a church.

The proposed document, which the bishops could vote on next year, enunciates principles guiding the construction of new churches and the renovation of existing ones. Bishops used their discussion time to voice their displeasure about the trend over the past 30 years of tabernacles being removed from the back of the sanctuary, visible to nearly all, and placed in side chapels.

Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, New Mexico, said that in the week prior to the bishops' Nov. 15-18 meeting, he had asked one congregation what they thought about the Eucharist being more present to them. "The church burst out in spontaneous applause," he added.

Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha, Nebraska, complained that liturgical development in the US places "more and more emphasis on the assembly, and less and less on the reserved species" of the Eucharist.

Bishop Sean O'Malley of Fall River, Massachusetts, told his fellow bishops, "We've all heard these comments: "This place doesn't look like a church." There's been a certain suburbanisation of the heavenly Jerusalem."

He traced it to a series of separate actions which he credited with de-emphasising the importance of the Eucharist. These included elimination of the midnight fast before receiving Communion; removal of Communion railings; and the lack of genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament.

"Changing all of these signs is changing the meaning in the people's minds," Bishop O'Malley said. "It's very damaging to the faith of our people." Nov.'99 The Record