We are Church:

Petition for change ignores Natural Law

In 1996, a former nun of the Catholic Church drew up a petition for change entitled "We are Church." Perhaps with noble intentions, the nun hoped to begin the winds of change blowing within the Church. And, though I’m not aware of the number of signatures she received, I’m sure her document – which called for a change in the hierarchy of the Church, married priests, female clergy, and the acceptance of homosexuality – was well-received by many.

That same year, a small group of students at a high school in Manassas, Virginia, drew up its own petition. The "We are Catholic" petition has been signed by more than 100,000 people in the United States and beyond. Even more significant is that the authors of the petition were invited to Rome by Pope John Paul II. The pontiff acknowledged their work and mentioned the authors by name during a general audience.

In this commentary, I wish to continue the work begun in the "We are Catholic" petition. I must admit that while I have met one of the authors of the petition and read of how the whole thing got started, I have not read their petition. I have, on the other hand, been fortunate enough to view the "We are Church" document. What follows are my own conclusions about the nun’s petition:

What’s in a name?

A lot actually! It is significant that the document calling for such changes is entitled "We are Church," while the document defending the Church is called "We are Catholic." The nun’s title indicates a community linked together in an organization – a church. However, the title of the students’ document seems to indicate basic beliefs rather than an association.

Simply put, the students indicate by saying "We are Catholic" that being Catholic means certain things. It refers to a system of beliefs. Not only are we a Church, we are the Catholic Church.

The issue of power

Many of the points made in "We are Church" are in reference to power. The writer seeks among other things "a true involvement of any diocese in choosing its own bishop," "the right [of communities] to celebrate the Eucharist and to live their own faith in a plurality free from historically conditioning rules" (italics mine for emphasis).

In choosing its own bishop, the shift of POWER (which seems to be the recurring theme in the petition and other ill-conceived attempts at changing the Church) would move from the pope to the individual dioceses. This counters the idea that the pope is the successor to St. Peter who, as first pope, was appointed by Christ himself. The election of bishops would serve to sever one of our most important ties to the Messiah.

Also, the election of bishops would result in a "church" based not on truth but on a political organization. Bishops are considered servants of the people, but they are also subject to Rome and, therefore, Christ himself. Should a popular election of bishops be established, the church leaders would become subject to the whims of their parishioners rather than the truth of Catholicism.

"To live their own faith…free from historically conditioning rules" is a direct refutation of part of our creed: "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church." Again, "their own faith" implies that it is okay for faiths to vary. The variance of faith in individuals is a human condition. However, we all aspire to one true faith – "one holy catholic and apostolic church."

The marriage of priests

This issue is more comprehensively covered in my commentary on married clergy. The "We are Church" petition claims that priests should "be free to choose their status" and that the imposed celibacy "has neither biblical nor dogmatic foundations." WRONG! Allowing married priests would counter the Church’s teaching on vocations. The Church has long taught that we are called by God to the single life, the married life, or the religious life (as in clergy, nuns, etc.). Married priests would find themselves held to contrary vows.

Divorce

Fifty percent of all marriages fail. How many times have you heard that? "We are Church" calls for a revision of rules which would allow "divorced-remarried people" to receive the Eucharist. This would mean that the Church would have to lessen its emphasis upon the importance of marital union.

When a couple is married in the Church, the priest says "What God has joined, let no man divide." Divorce is exactly what that sentence refers to. The Church cannot accept the sin of divorce without sacrificing the sacrament of matrimony.

Birth control and homosexuality

These are lumped together not by me, but by the writer of the petition:

"Male and female, He created them, and behold it was very good." The writer of the petition uses this passage from Genesis to explain that the Church ought to allow "freedom of conscience about birth control and non-discrimination towards homosexuality." The writer claims "this judgement about Creation brings out sexuality as God’s gift to everyone." Frankly, I don’t see the connection. This could very well be one of the most liberal interpretations of any line in the Bible.

The Church’s teaching regarding birth control was expressed by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubbi (On Christian Marriage), clearly reiterated by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, and continues to be supported by Pope John Paul II. The Church regards birth control as a sin against the sanctity of life in that contraception, as seen by its very name ("against conception"), prevents God from creating life and devalues the conjugal act between a man and a woman.

Incidentally, couples who use Natural Family Planning, the only means of spacing children allowed by the Church, have a divorce rate of about two percent. That’s quite a bit better than that 50 percent nationwide mentioned above. Just another reason why the Church should not change its teaching.

Regarding homosexuality, Pope John Paul II has issued a statement emphasizing that Catholics should treat homosexuals and all individuals with love and respect. However, homosexual acts remain a mortal sin.

This principle reflects the ancient idea of "love the sinner, but hate the sin." Homosexual acts are wrong because they are sexual acts committed outside the bonds of matrimony. The Church teaches that all acts of sexual intercourse committed outside of marriage are sins. This is a most basic teaching that cannot and should not be changed.

Women as priests

The Church has recently restated that the priesthood is to be reserved for males. This is based on the fact that Jesus chose only male apostles. This is not to say that women are subservient members of the Church. In fact, the Catholic Church’s unique reverence for Mary should serve as evidence of the importance of women within the Church.

In calling for allowing female priests, the "We are Church" petition makes a grave error of reason, not simply because it calls for something that counters the Church. The petition states: "we ask you to check through the Holy Bible, so as to have women becoming ministers." It must be noted that this sentence does not call for individuals to thoroughly study the Bible to arrive at truth. It calls for a study of the Bible to meet a predetermined end.

The writer has determined what she wants proved. Now, she asks that we go out and prove it!

Conclusion

The supporters of change within the Church often have no desire for the discovery of truth. What they seek is a Church that is agreeable to their own human desires. What they seek is to "investigate" scripture in order to support their predetermined conclusions about it.

The Church and its teachings are based on a system of natural law, which, as numerous popes have stated, is imprinted upon the hearts of all people. Aquinas explained that natural law is that law which can be known inherently by anyone. It is placed in our hearts by God and is revealed to us by Him.

Revolutionaries who would allow women priests, married priests, divorce, birth control, homosexuality, etc., want the Church to change in order to serve desires that are wholly human. In doing this, they are not only ignoring Natural Law, but they are asking God to rewrite it as well!

Chris Mosmeyer
April 14, 1998