Changing the Church: Considering Tolerance

There are, I believe, two key motivations behind the campaign for changes in the Catholic Church.

The first is the desires of those seeking the changes. Some individuals are seeking changes that would benefit themselves. Those who seek the Church’s approval for contraception, for example, likely use or would like to use contraception. This is a rather selfish reason for seeking change. It would be nice if what is right always coincided with what we would like to be right, but we know that is not always the case.

The second motivation is tolerance, and this one is nobler than the first. It appears to be self-less rather than selfish. Many of the people seeking the right for clergy to be married have no intention of being a married clergyman, but they see that a spouse might make life easier for priests. They also view it as a way to solve the problem of our shrinking priest population. If you let them get married, perhaps more men would choose to be priests, since they would not be forced to choose between having a family and becoming a priest.

The motivation of tolerance is, as I said, nobler than the selfish motivation of individual desire, but it is still misguided. The irony is that many who seek change likely do not subscribe to the ideology of the changes they seek, but they feel we should be tolerant of those who do.

The pro-choice movement, for example, is comprised of two distinct camps. There are those who see nothing wrong with abortion and would have one if the occasion arose. Then, there are those who claim they could never have an abortion, but they view it as a moral choice that should be left up to the individual. Therefore, they claim that all people should have the right to choose. This is the tolerant camp.

The concept of tolerance is not an easy one. We are called by God to love one another, yet our belief in God sometimes makes it difficult to be tolerant of those who do not. It’s difficult sometimes to stand up for what is right, as the saying goes, when we consider that we should be tolerant of differing opinions.

The idea of tolerance comes from John Locke’s theory of the social contract. Our society is based on the Constitution and the establishment of certain freedoms. These freedoms are recognized as a contract between individuals in order that the individuals may coexist peacefully within a society.

This considered, where then do we draw the line of tolerance? At what point do we stop and say, "That’s not right"?

That line must be drawn when it comes to changing the doctrine of the Catholic Church, or for that matter, the doctrine of any church. A society is based on human law – laws established by man to create and maintain a social harmony. Religions, however, are based upon a divine and eternal truth. They are guided by natural, divine and eternal laws, all of which Aquinas judged to be unchanging.

Noted philosopher Jacques Maritain discussed tolerance in his book On the Use of Philosophy and came to the same conclusion. In dealing with the question "Can philosophers cooperate?" Maritain said yes, as individuals, but the systems they subscribe to cannot:

There is not toleration between systems – a system cannot tolerate another system, because systems are abstract sets of ideas and have only intellectual existence, where the will to tolerate or not to tolerate has no part – but there can be justice, intellectual justice, between philosophical systems. (28)

The move to change the Catholic Church is a move to find a tolerance between two systems: the Church and society. In changing the doctrine of the Church, we would be changing what we believe to be right in one system by adding what we believe to be right in another.

Let me explain. In our society, we have established a freedom of religion. In doing so, we state that all individuals should have the right to choose a belief system. As Catholics, we say that we subscribe to the belief system of the Catholic Church. We have utilized our freedom to choose the Catholic Church, and at the same time, we recognize the right of other individuals to choose a different church. This is what Maritain meant when he said, "there can be justice, intellectual justice, between philosophical systems." Maritain also said that "between philosophers there can be tolerance" (28). Tolerance between philosophers means that each subscribes to a system of beliefs while admitting that those who believe something different still have the right to exist.

In calling for changes within the doctrine of the Catholic Church, however, we are stating that we believe in a particular body of truths and saying that we do not believe those truths. We are saying that within religion, we should have a freedom of religion. That is, we believe in a truth, but within that belief in a truth, we believe that the truth is false and should be changed.

Simple metaphysics can be used to show how ridiculous this is – something cannot be and not be at the same time. Also, a whole is comprised of its parts. If you change the parts, you necessarily effect change within the whole. Changing the doctrine of the Catholic Church would create a new church (this is how Protestant churches were formed).

Referring to the motivation of tolerance once again, we can see that within a belief system it is not right to be tolerant of ideas which run counter to that system. We’ve been told that we should love the sinner, but hate the sin. This command demonstrates tolerance of an individual but at the same time, a lack of tolerance for the act that runs counter to the system of beliefs, and it should be so.

Simply put, we should be tolerant of those who seek change for whatever reason. At the same time, we must not be tolerant of the changes they seek: "We love truth more than we do our fellow-philosophers, but we love and respect both" (Maritain 29).

Chris Mosmeyer
April 30, 1998