+++ open letter +++
Dear Cardinal Burke,
I have a question, with an explanation I’ll try to keep
short. It includes a question about Amoris
Laetitia, but only tangentially.
The question: after the teaching of Pope Saint John Paul II
on Penance and Reconciliation, which
includes a revolutionary section on social sin, is the Church going to re-think
and re-shape the way we go about celebrating this Sacrament, to incorporate his
ideas into our life? For example, what does it look like to see the sin of
inhospitality in our lives, and to repent and turn away from it, toward freedom
to worship without fear?
I want to write about this for 10,000 words or so. I won’t! I’ll
be as brief as I can be, and hope it’s still clear, not too gnomic.
1.
John Paul II wrote: “Whenever the church speaks
of situations of sin or when the condemns as social sins certain situations or
the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of
whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases
of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many
personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or
support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid,
eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of
laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or
indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of
changing the world and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice
required, producing specious reasons of higher order. The real responsibility,
then, lies with individuals.” (Reconciliatio
et Paenitentia, 16) This is a careful description of the interface between
social sin and personal sin. That is, when I see that my society is in sin, what do I look for in my own life? Here, I think, is an answer.
2.
I have never heard of anyone going to confession
and asking God for forgiveness for gravely evil silence or indifference. That
is, I don’t think that JPII’s teaching has affected the way we celebrate this
Sacrament – at least not yet.
3.
I note that there are many lists of sins
floating around, with much attention recently given to the “non-negotiable”
sins (from Catholic Answers??). This list of “non-negotiables” includes
euthanasia, which definitely is has blurry and negotiable edges – but that’s a
distraction. The real problem here is that Jesus had a list too, in Matthew 25;
and his list is not a part of the way we prepare for the Sacrament of
Reconciliation. That’s a serious problem. If he has a list, and you have a
list, and his list isn’t on your list, then your list is complete garbage.
4.
His list is about sins of omission, like: you
didn’t welcome strangers. St. Thomas Aquinas stated firmly that the sins of
omission in Matthew 25 are indeed, in the categories of scholastic teaching, mortal
sins. It seems to me that JPII’s list above does resemble the Lord’s list – not point by point, but in approach.
5.
I note with great interest the reaction of the
woman at the well to her celebration of reconciliation with Jesus. She danced
off hollering, inviting people to check it out. It wasn’t just that she was
free from shame, stepping away from something; she was free to love, racing
towards something (someone). This does indeed look like the thing that
Zechariah prophesied: “Blessed be the Lord, who has come to us and set us FREE
… FREE to worship without fear!” That’s not about keeping cops away from the
doors of our churches; that’s about drawing close to God as our Father, not as
an angry and vengeful Judge.
6.
I understand the guy in the back of the church
beating his breast, bowed over in shame. He’s a model, contrasted with the
holy-holy braggart who stands erect. Got it. But I think there’s a before and
an after, and I think the dancing whore turned exuberant story-teller is the
after-shot. We aren’t supposed to come out of an encounter with God feeling
clean; that’s good too, but it’s not the point. We’re supposed to come out
ready to change the world. Not just erect, but dancing. Free to worship, which
means – true worship, that is, in the teaching of the prophets, means – caring
for the poor, because we like them, because they look like God who is an
extraordinarily beautiful person (to understate it, which is the only way we
can state it).
7.
It seems to me that the Sacrament of penance and
reconciliation is indeed supposed to send us out ready to change the world.
JPII said that it is sinful to “take refuge in the supposed impossibility of
changing the world.” So freedom from social sins should mean – in part, among
other things – the freedom to embark on serious efforts to change the world.
8.
I think that the whole tribunal apparatus,
addressing sexual sins with a social machine that goes from parish to diocese
to Rome, looks stupid in the absence of a similar social machine addressing
social sins like inhospitality and war and racism. For sure, family life is
fundamental. But American immigration policies since we brought the Chinese
here to build our railroads has been deliberately shaped to smash families. America
said to them: “Build our railroads through the mountains; but don’t bring your
wife, here’s a whore; now we’re done with the work and with you, get out.” It’s
ludicrous to separate family life from employment. Family life is fundamental
to social life and spiritual life – fundamental, but not the whole story. Living
with a second partner after a divorce may be “living in sin,” but so is
institutional racism. So is a defense posture based on a gravely immoral
determination to use weapons of mass destruction if “necessary.” Further, sexual
sins may indeed be scandalous, but not uniquely so; other sins that include
scandal are flirting with nukes, and treating whole groups of people with
contempt.
9.
If there’s a tribunal examining abuses of human
sexuality, why not other socially relevant sins? I’m not eager to re-institute
the Inquisition! But if we don’t have a social machine wrestling with the
problems of SAC and the nuclear triad, of walls, of renewed Crusades, why do we
have a complex social machine to wrestle with sex? The tribunals focus on
problems that are not on Jesus’ list! If we can leave questions about
repentance and turning away regarding structures of evil and social sins in the
hands of parish priests, why can’t we leave marriage issues there too?
10.
It seems to me – anecdotal evidence, no more
than that – it seems to me that the people who care most about the work of the
marriage tribunals and divorce and communion are often extraordinarily careless
about social sins. I think this imbalance and division is an emergency in the
life of the Church.
Do you expect
that the teaching of Pope Saint John Paul II in Paenitentia et Reconciliatio, particularly the teaching on social sin, will lead to
large and systematic changes in the way we understand and celebrate this
sacrament? If so, will this change – possibly end – the whole marriage tribunal
apparatus?
Respectfully
yours in one Lord,
John
Cavanaugh-O’Keefe