The theological "gradualism" being talked about in the Vatican has nothing to do with (shudder) "political" change -- ha-ha!

With "The Company Way" update (see below)


"The Company Way": "Whoever the company fires, I will still be here." (That's Sammy Smith as mail-room chief Mr. Twimble and Bobby Morse as newly assigned mail-room flunky J. Pierrepont Finch, both holdovers from the 1961 Original Broadway Cast, in the 1967 film version of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, music and lyrics by Frank Loesser.) For more of "The Company Way," see the Update below.

by Ken

Let's say you're in charge of a big old church and you love the ancient dear but you've got the feeling that in some ways it's kind of stuck in, you know, the Dark Ages. Now you have a shot at doing something about it, and not that large a window. You have to know that one of your problems -- heck, probably your biggest problem -- is your large cohort of faithful insiders, for whom "the company way" is working just fine, thank you. After all, they're faithful insiders.

Okay, so maybe I'm not speaking entirely hypothetically, and have in mind the latest wrinkle in Pope Francis's apparent wish to shake his church out of its reflexively medieval ignorance and bigotry. That wrinkle is some indication of possible doctrinal "flex," not from the pope himself this time, but from what the Washington Post's Michelle Boorstein the other day, in "Church must show more compassion, respect for same-sex couples, Vatican document says," called "a top Vatican panel assisting Pope Francis." That panel, Synod 14, Boorstein wrote,

went further than the Church has gone before in affirming non-traditional relationships, saying Monday that the Church must “turn respectfully” to couples such as those who live together unmarried or are of the same-gender and “appreciate the positive values” those unions may have.

The comments blew away some longtime Vatican experts because they put the Catholic Church – the world’s largest – squarely in the middle of the mainstream public discussion about sexuality and marriage, rather than in one corner focused mostly on unchanging doctrine. What changes to doctrine or practice might follow from the suggestions, if any, weren’t at all clear.

The comments came in a document a small handful of clergy — including DC’s Archbishop Donald Wuerl — prepared to summarize what has happened during the first half of a two-week long “synod” Francis called in order to confront the Church’s most contentious issues. The document was the first real information the Vatican has released on what’s gone on in the rare high-level meeting of 190 top clergy, who are launching a deeper look at church teaching and practice around family issues. It’s meant to guide further talks for this week and in coming months.

"The document," Boorstein noted, "reaffirmed that traditional teachings are the 'ideal' but was remarkable to some in its openness and lack of emphasis on condemnation of untraditional relationships."

The Rev. James Martin, a Catholic writer with the Jesuit magazine America, wrote that the document was “stunning.”

“The Synod said that gay people have ‘gifts and talents to offer the Christian community.’ This is something that even a few years ago would have been unthinkable, from even the most open-minded of prelates–that is, a statement of outright praise for the contribution of gays and lesbians, with no caveat and no reflexive mention of sin,” Martin wrote. “That any church document would praise same-sex ‘partners’ in any way (and even use the word ‘partners’) is astonishing.”

On that, the document said “Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.”

But Boorstein also quoted Fordham University Theology Department Chair Patrick Horbeck sounding a note of caution:

Some questions were asked here that have never been asked publicly by bishops: What good can we find in same-sex unions? In many ways for the first time in a long time the Catholic Church is saying it wants to ask really hard questions about how people truly live their lives. But the fact that the question is being asked doesn’t mean the answer will be what progressive and liberal Catholics want it to be . . .it would be a mistake to see this document as in any way definitive or significantly revolutionary.

Then came a press conference yesterday when, ThinkProgress's Jack Jenkins reported, "the Vatican reversed course."

[O]fficials announced the release of an edited English version of the report that alters passages that affirm gay people. For example, the new version changes the translation of the Italian phrase “Accogliere le persone omosessuali,” which was initially rendered in the English version as “to welcome homosexual persons,” a literal interpretation of the text. Although the original Italian document remains unchanged, Thursday’s revision edited the English version to read, “providing for homosexual persons,” a shift that Thomas Reese of the National Catholic Reporter said was “clearly … not an accurate translation.”

The new document includes other subtle alterations as well, although virtually all of the edits deal with the Catholic church’s position on homosexuality. Thursday’s version of the report, for instance, changed a phrase that previously referred to same-sex unions as “precious support in the life of the partners” to “valuable support in the life of these persons.”

The revisions appear to be an attempt by the Vatican — or at least English-speaking bishops — to control the media narrative surrounding the release of the original document. After various outlets and reporters heralded the inclusive stance of Monday’s document, conservative Catholics began publicly lambasting the report, with one South African Cardinal condemning some of its statements as “irredeemable.” Although there is speculation that Francis hinted at the release of the document during Mass on Monday morning, the Vatican quickly backtracked on Tuesday, explaining the report was a “working document” and saying that they did not want to give “the impression of a positive evaluation” of homosexuality, according to CNN.

Oops!

I don't think you have to be Kreskin to intuit that there's some fairly fierce political infighting going on inside church ranks, and American Catholics must be proud to know that their very own U.S. bishops are once again in the thick of the fight to keep the Church safely mired in the medieval muck.

Wait! Did I just say "political"? "Politics" inside the Church of Rome? What could I have been thinking of.

At least that's what a gentleman named David Cloutier, who we're told "is on the theology faculty at Mount St. Mary’s University and is the editor of the blog 'Catholic Moral Theology,' " is here to tell us, with an absolutely straight face, in a WaPo op-ed piece whose title asks and answers its own question: "Is the Vatican evolving on sex and marriage? Not the way politicians do." Normally I wouldn't go out of my way to make fun of a person's faith. (Usually you don't have to. It comes pre-made-fun-of.) But when the person mounts his high horse spinning bullshit into pseudo-moral and pseudo-philosophical jibber-jabber, well, sometimes you have to take the shot.

"In American politics," says our man, " 'evolution' has become the term of choice to describe shifting attitudes, especially toward same-sex marriage."

President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are among those who have talked about their views evolving or having evolved.

At the Vatican this past week, “gradualism” was the term emphasized by the bishops and cardinals from around the world meeting to discuss issues of sexuality and family that have divided the church.

The bishops and cardinals didn’t use the term to describe a shift in their thinking. Rather, in the provisional report of the Synod on the Family, they invoked gradualism in recognition that even those who strive toward a moral ideal tend to fall short; for all of us, morality takes time and practice. They urged appreciation of the good in relationships that don’t meet the church ideal of monogamous, til-death-do-us-part marriage.

In accordance with the “law of gradualness,” unmarried couples living together might be encouraged to find deeper commitment in a relationship that has obvious value. Individuals who have remarried after divorce may perhaps be able to take Communion if, for example, the second marriage is stable and clearly benefits the children. Some of the church leadership talked about affirming long-term, committed same-sex relationships in the same way the Catholic Church affirms the virtue in other religious traditions. “One simply cannot say that a faithful homosexual relationship that has held for decades is nothing,” Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich elaborated to a reporter. . . .

Our David goes on, and on, but you can read that for yourself. Let's fast-forward to where he really puts his finger on it. "Clearly, something is happening within the church."

Church leaders and members, like the members of any other community, have been influenced by the experience of having friends, relatives and neighbors who are living admirable lives after divorce, or who are in committed, loving same-sex relationships. The pope and the bishops meeting in Rome are also acutely aware of increasing secularization and decreasing membership.

But this is not the same as what happens when individuals or societies “gradually” change their views on a given issue.

You see, "Unlike secular political movements, the church is not staking out positions on social issues with the goal of effecting — or blocking — legal or cultural change."

It does not see social change (however important) as an end in itself. Instead, the goal is to facilitate the encounter with God, in the person of Jesus and the community of the church. The deliberations of the synod make clear that Francis and many other bishops worry intensely that a focus on certain moral ideals, especially when they sound like a simple “no” to many people, constitutes a barrier to that fundamental spiritual encounter.

Thus, unlike secular advocacy of this or that stance on an issue, gradualism rests on the more important theological conviction that God is really at work in the world. . . .

At this distinction I imagine the all-Catholic bloc of thug-justices on the U.S. Supreme Court would nod sagely. They too would never engage in "secular advocacy of this or that stance on an issue." It just comes out looking this way -- the, er, "company way."

And you know how they're always portrayed as bad guys when they have to once again just say no when they have benighted appellants asking for what might be called "the comfort of a little extra personal freedom and liberation"?

You could say that, in highlighting gradualness, the synod is saying something very, very old, and not all that political: We are all sinners, and we must rely on God’s grace, not just our own resources. That’s not a gradual realization on the part of the church but something ancient. And it arises not out of a kind of laxism, but out of a recognition of how demanding and challenging Christianity is. I myself need gradualism whenever I read about loving enemies, forgiving people over and over, letting go of the illusory security and charm of possessions. How fortunate we would be if we applied gradualism toward high ideals of sustainable energy use, care for the poor and the immigrant, and sexual respect and discipline — all of which are vigorously proclaimed by the church. Instead, we often sacrifice such ambitious ideals, perhaps for the comfort of a little extra personal freedom and liberation.

The church wants much more than these private victories. God wants nothing less than love out of us. But God also knows: It takes a long time.

This actually sounds strikingly like the kind of gradualism one of the small band of remaining non-thug-justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was talking about not long ago when she spoke the virtues of, well, gradual change in the area of same-sex marriage as opposed to, say, the thunderbolt of Roe v. Wade on the issue of abortion. Of course Justice Ginsburg was talking about gradual change in law, not religion, and in any case not being, you know, Catholic, she probably wouldn't understand. Probably Justice Scalia or Alito could explain it to her.

And of course the suggestion that there might be politics in the inner workings of the Church, why, that must seem practically blasphemous -- assuming, that is, that you know nothing whatsoever about the inner workings of the Church. Some people would say that it's one of the most intensely and viciously political institutions on the planet. Perhaps Justices Scalia and Alito can explain it to them when they finish explaining to Justice Ginsburg.


UPDATE: "THE COMPANY WAY" REPRISED (WITH REPRISE)



As I mentioned up top, Sammy Smith (doubling Mr. Twinble and World Wide Wicket Company board chairman Wally Womper) and Bobby Morse (J. Pierrepont Finch) were in the Original Broadway Cast of How to Succeed. Here they are in 1961, along with the reprise of "The Company Way" sung by Ponty's new archrival, Bud Frump (the nephew of WWW president J. B. Biggley), played on Broadway by the one and only Charles Nelson Reilly.

"The Company Way": Mr. Twimble (Sammy Smith) and Ponty (Robert Morse)

"The Company Way" reprise: Bud Frump (Charles Nelson Reilly), Sammy Smith, and company

Original Broadway Cast recording, Elliot Lawrence, cond. RCA-BMG, recorded Oct. 22, 1961

#