On hearing that the Doctrine of the Faith summons former U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, to testify on charges of schism. Vigano calls it an honor. I don’t know why you need to be so right, or maybe I just don’t understand it, but honey, you are just being a doctrinaire asshole.
Let’s talk schismatics or at least have a laugh or two.
Schism is defined as the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of some group (or an individual?) owing to doctrinal and other differences. Is this a threat?
I remember a conversation with Avery Dulles. As might be expected as the son of his father and a respected Catholic theologian, he served on several high-level ecumenical commissions. He told me (with his slight laugh and smile that disguised a complaint) that he often worked long hours on a paper describing doctrinal agreements and continuing points of dispute with a few modest suggestions to explore if the divide was real, imagined, or even important. And you can be sure his work was meticulous and exacting. The commission’s meeting began with a prayer petitioning the God of the doctrinal points they could agree upon and avoiding the rest. After Avery presented his paper, he was thanked and applauded. Then, the other side’s theologians presented a paper outlining their position and objections. They sat down and were politely applauded. Then they worked together on the closing statement: we can agree on X for Y reason, and we continue to disagree on Zed for Z. We were happy to have this exchange and pray for our continued growth in the Spirit, although let’s not go overboard in our expectations. Nothing changed and probably won’t--not after they appointed a woman as the presiding bishop, but let’s pass over that in silence and leak it to Kaiser or the NCR.
But all in all, this was far better than what might have happened just a few centuries earlier--one of those parties would have been burned at the stake. Depending on your side, the painful deaths of the heretics or martyrs became myths to warn succeeding generations, train them in self-sacrificial virtue, and remind them that some things can never be compromised. The Inquisitors made decisions about who needed to be celebrated, who needed to be blamed, and what lessons the survivors needed to draw.
A bloody time. Thousands were executed. The Roman Catholics did it, as did the newly reformed English Church. The Spanish Inquisition is now the stuff of jokes, but it was a life and death matter for the Jews, the conversos, and the dissenters who were murdered. A lot has changed over a few centuries, but we can’t erase that part of history that affronts our sensibilities. Revisionists erase the parts of history that don’t conform to the current myth. But keep the threat of schism alive.
An earlier Jesuit cardinal was not so lucky. In 1599, immediately after he was appointed Cardinal, Pope Clement made Robert Bellarmine an Inquisitor, and he served as one of the judges at Giordano Bruno's trial and concurred in the decision to condemn Bruno to be burned at the stake. It was a hard, thankless task for the quiet, saintly scholar, but he had a job description. And there were schisms to the right, to the left, and particularly to the north. I mentioned that to Avery once, and he said thank God we’re past that (although he continued to make a case for capital punishment). And he made the very good point that at least we are talking to one another.
Talking is a good thing. It's the only thing other than charitable actions and loving your mother. I say I would talk to anyone, but I really don’t think I want to be in the same room as Bishop Barron, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó, or Archbishop Sal Cordileone. Not that I couldn’t make small talk, but why bother? They would not be much interested in talking to me unless they might try to convert me, I suppose, and I think that the Compas are aware of just how open I would be to that conversation. Besides, my dance card is pretty full.
I loved talking with Avery. Even though we were worlds apart on most issues, he and I always tried to find where we might have an interesting conversation. That changed slightly after he was made a Cardinal, but not much.
The context was love, respect, and taking action to keep that flame burning. I told him that I went to confession with a high-church episcopal priest when I was doing my AA 4th Step because it felt right. He was a friend, and I was out of touch with any Jesuits I might have asked. He told me that although he disapproved, it was a valid sacrament. Then I had to tell him that this priest friend worked for the Jesuits at Saint Agnes in the Haight. Once, he was at a party for Bishop Ignatius Wang. The bishop got hammered and went on and on about same-sex marriage. My friend was wearing a clerical collar, and Bishop Wang probably presumed that my friend was Roman. His husband, sitting next to him, was wearing a sweater on the cold San Francisco evening. My friend didn’t introduce his husband for obvious reasons, such as job security.
I almost got Avery to laugh.
