Another great Ross Douthat column in the NYT

Find it here. Please read it all, because I bet it captures what a lot of my readers are experiencing right now.  An excerpt:

I am a Catholic for various contingent reasons (this is as true of converts as of anyone else), but on a conscious level it’s because I am a mostly-faithful Christian who is mostly convinced that Roman Catholicism is the expression of Christianity that has kept faith most fully with the early church and the words of Jesus of Nazareth himself. A point that Cardinal George Pell, recently of Sydney and now of the Roman curia, made in a talk this week — that the search for authority in Christianity began not with pre-emptive submission to an established hierarchy, but with early Christians who “wanted to know whether the teachings of their bishops and priests were in conformity with what Christ taught” — is crucial to my own understanding of the reasons to be Catholic: I believe in papal authority, the value of the papal office, because I think that office has played a demonstrable role in maintaining the faith’s continuity, coherence and fidelity across two thousand years of human history.


So if you asked me, as a secular or Protestant reader might be inclined to do, “do you believe that marriage is indissoluble because the pope is infallible and he says so?”, I might answer: “Mostly the reverse: I think the papacy might well be guided on the Holy Spirit because it has taught so consistently that marriage is indissoluble, while almost every other Christian body has succumbed to the pressures and political incentives to say otherwise.”


So if the change being debated were to happen, if the pope were to approve and promulgate it, that would seem like a Big Deal, with big repercussions for how people – myself, and others – understand their relationship to the Catholic faith. Andrew Sullivan, in a post that I think perhaps falls slightly short of his usual standards of generosity, accuses me of being filled with “rage” over this possibility, and of calling for an anti-Francis schism. But that’s not what I said, or how I really feel. When I suggested that church might have to “resist” the pope on these questions, I had in mind public argument and pressure, a more significant version of the pushback at the synod, rather than a beeline to the local SSPX chapel, and if Pope Francis were to make what I consider a kind of doctrinal backflip I wouldn’t be making that beeline myself; I’d remain an ordinary practicing Catholic, remain engaged in these debates (because I would still think my side’s view is closer to the original teaching of the faith), but my understanding of papal authority would be changed in ways that would inevitably change my underlying relationship to the church.


So my dominant emotion isn’t anger right now: It’s a mix of dismay and determination, anxiety and hope, cycling back and forth depending on events. And if the change being bruited were to happen I’m quite sure that my main emotions would be rue and regret – rue that I had somewhat misjudged the church I joined eighteen years ago this spring, and regret that an institution that I believe to be divinely established notwithstanding all its human sins turned out to have a little less of the divine about it than I thought.

This speaks to my condition, as the Quakers say.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Another great Ross Douthat column in the NYT

  1. TACit no more says:

    It would certainly be nice if, instead of or in addition to opining on this Synod’s aftermath, journalist Douthat could devote his skills to illuminating the contrast of the real Synod, manipulations and all, with the one the media created as it reported, particularly within the Catholic blogosphere where honestly, one can find a very wide range of interpretations for the implications of the mid-point relatio. I am inclined to disagree with Mark Shea (in the following post to this one), and suspect he is simply not aware of the manipulations of synodlcal procedure that have already destroyed the witness of much of Anglican Christianity, but some of us for example now in the Ordinariates lived through those, and are thus wiser and more cautious.

    • CatholicLeft says:

      I will say what I said to one of my closest friends who is a member of the Personal Ordinariate of OLW and was panicking about the Synod: “Synods in the Catholic Church are not like ones in the C of E or TEC – Doctrine will not change and, when it all comes to an end, you will wonder what you have been panicking about.”
      I have been intrigued by the reaction of many former Anglicans and their reactions to the Synod reports and somewhat worried by the venomous remarks of a handful, which smacked of the kind of thing you read in the continuing Anglican blogosphere.
      I understand more how hurt so many were when they felt that they were fighting a losing battle in their former lives but I hope that this particualr experience reassures them that, however the media choose to report things, the Pope is Catholic and the Church will not veer from Scripture.

  2. TACit no more says:

    Now I wish even more for Douthat, or someone, to write about the Synod, having just read the report that at Notre Dame’s Ethics Center, no less a personage than Cardinal Mueller has just said that there were ‘two Synods’, the one he participated in and the one of the mass media.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: