OPEN LETTER to the Universal Christian Church

To the article “AXIOMS OF EVOLUTION: Where Conscience comes from”, which I published at this site, December 16, 2006, Jerome K. writes: “Ah, but will it make ice-cream? Sorry, but it was heavy reading but I will read it later. Real life takes over sometimes. I’ve got to move a carload of belongings for my son’s lady. It’s all a bit…emotional, if you know what I mean…”

I understand what he’s saying. I’ve been there, I’ve done that. We are all passengers on the runaway train of demanding consumerism and we don’t know how to slow it down and get off. Consumerism is a wasting cultural habit which is justified by a misguided worldview. It is mortally devastating natural ecologies and economies. A new sense of ultimate reality (truth) may help us change our worldview, and a change of worldview may let us change cultural “truth” and find a way to get off the train.

The problem is complex. Just to give an example. In the “Ethics Notebook” of AMERICA magazine a few weeks back there was an insightful article about atheists, consumerism and the meaning of Christmas. I responded to the article with a letter to the Editor under the caption “Truth, Worldview and Ultimate Reality”. This letter was published online at www.americamagazine.org . This is what I wrote:

 “In his inimitable way, “Christmas-ists, the atheists are onto something”, AMERICA Magazine, December 18-25, 2006, pg 8, Fr. John F. Kavanaugh, SJ, deftly credits evolution atheists over the extravagance of Christmas consumerism. His style is a genius mark of Jesuit erudition in the mold of the Master. Jesus himself (given the imperialism of the time) was a “sign of contradiction”, a “voice set against” the imperial culture of Rome, which culture later became theologized into Roman Catholicism.

“The Protestant Reformation was a contradiction to the imperial culture of Roman Church/State. The Council of Trent (still enthralled in the culture of dominion theology) contradicted the Reformation. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, SJ, the Sacred Inquisition Head, gave to Tridentine Church a theology justifying dominion ecclesiology. Vatican I later endorsed Trent and enlarged on the theology/ecclesiology of dominion.

“Along comes Pope John XXIII, of blessed memory, who counters by way of the Second Vatican Council with a theology/ecclesiology that contradicts imperial church. The last King-Pope, Pius IX had the Council (Vatican I) declare him infallible in order to add weight to the many anathemas he pronounced on Modernism — with which Vatican II sought accommodation, and not the least of which issues was evolution. [Gaudium et spes, Intro #5]

“Vatican I apologists yet labor mightily to deny and discredit the real differences of Vatican II with Vatican I. Reconciling the two Councils and their popes is a challenge. How do Jesuits reconcile their oath of allegiance to contradictory papacies and Councils? How do Jesuits reconcile the theology of evolution (Teilhard de Chardin, SJ) with the fixity theology of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, SJ? Can the Society of Jesus, in its public witness, espouse both sides of polarized opposites within the Church and be credible? Can such contradiction be tolerated in Church without damage to the Church?

“Loss of credibility in Church today is largely attributable to the cross-purposes of imperial theology/ecclesiology with today’s accepted worldview, in my opinion. Infallibilism belongs to the world of imperial fixity. The worldview of imperial fixity, politically and theologically, no longer has worldview claim. Not? Whither the future? This is an issue about ultimate reality and fidelity to truth. Conciliarism is surely the way of evolutionary openness, not? Where does Pope Benedict XVI stand on conciliarism? How are Jesuits advising the Pope? Do Jesuits take a position for one or the other?

“Weighty questions which will hugely affect society and religious authenticity. The Church should get over it, acknowledge “official” mistakes in the past and adjust so it can retain credibility and purpose for common wellbeing.”

Signed: Sylvester L. Steffen

Where authority resides in Church has been a contentious issue for some 1500 years. Infallibilism, conciliarism and truth! These remain bones of contention within Church up to this very time. Given Church History, it seems reasonable to expect the Pope, the Hierarchy and the Jesuits to answer the question “who and what are driving the faithful to division and polarity, and putting in question Church credibility?”

It seems unreasonable in the least for Church, hierarchy and religious institutions, to expect the faithful to stand with one foot in Vatican I and the other in Vatican II while the Church hierarchy continues to be divided over power and control in Church and over the seemingly irreconcilable worldviews of Vatican I and Vatican II.

Keeping people polarized fuels public animus and may serve commercial interests but commercial interests are no justification for fomenting polarities. Why wouldn’t thoughtful people get frustrated with church? It makes one ask “Where’s the truth, the decency?”