Common Ground, Holy Ground

Recently, America Magazine published a conversation between the New York Times journalist Ross Douthat and Fr. James Martin, S.J..  This conversation was in response to Mr. Douthat’s article “Pope and the Precipice,” in which Douthat expressed concern over the tensions within the Church being stretched even to the point of potential schism.  Noting that members of the Church who hold tight to doctrines and practices of the Church which clearly define the hot button topics which were discussed in the Synod on the family, Douthat voiced a deep concern that the Church, and particularly the papacy is calling into question foundational understandings of important issues which directly affect the life of the family in the modern age.  

In response to the article, there have been many retorts and some attacks issued against Mr. Douthat, but it was impressive to see Fr. Martin extend an invitation for a public conversation around the issue.  Though Fr. Martin and Mr. Douthat express differing opinions and positions on particular issues within their public email debate, both remained calm, respectful, and on point.  They did not resort to ad hominem attacks, but clearly and precisely debated the differences they espouse.  This discourse is an exemplary model of respectful and responsible dialogue and I commend both of them for partaking, but within their correspondence there seems to be an undercurrent of a greater issue.  

Within the people of God, the Church, there seems to be a great divide which continues to eat away at the core and particularly keeps leading the millennials out the door.  This divide is between the two factions which are commonly known as “conservatives” and “liberals/progressives.”  This is not a new divide, it is something that was present well before the Second Vatican Council and continues on into the post-council Church.  Unfortunately as members of these two factions, typically older members of the Church, continue to fight over many issues, the millennial generation and generations shortly beyond react by walking out the door.  Fueled by a disdain for conflict and what they perceive to be a contradiction of the call of the Gospel to “love one another,” millennials do not find a home in a waring Church.  The challenge then is to find and model a way of dialogue which moves away from trench warfare and into open, honest, and respectful dialogue.

In a world where emotivism rules as the main mode of disagreement, there really are not many examples of respectful dialogue.  If we look toward the American political system, toward the special interest groups present within and outside the Church, the constant positioning flies in the face of the objective of dialogue with the purpose of discovering Truth.  But within the Church, there is a model which was proposed in the late 1990s by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin which is known as the “Catholic Common Ground Project.”  Though the model was not well received during his time, it is something that is worth revisiting as we continue to face continued entrenchment in the Church.

The debate between Mr. Douthat and Fr. Martin unearths the reality that involving the Church in open and genuine dialogue about important issues and practices within the Church can be a point of contention in and of itself.  As Douthat points out, there is a fear that if doctrines and dogmas are discussed or questioned the faithful can be lead into doubt and disbelief.  Much of this feared conclusion arises from perhaps a process of deconstructionism which is typically the norm of dialogue and discourse within a postmodernist perspective.  The ultimate objective of this mode of questioning and debate is to strip away the trappings of “man-made” truths which serve the will of those who hold power.  As such the debate is not necessarily an exploration of relevant issues to further discover truth and goodness, but to break down systems of power so that power can be handed over the individual so he/she can determine the good and true for him/herself.  

As a response to this concern, the late Cardinal Bernardin made it clear that the process of dialogue which he called the “Catholic Common Ground Initiative” was not a way to create a structure of compromising doctrine and reaching a democratic resolution on issues of contention within the Church, but rather a way to approach with humbleness and honesty genuine issues that divide the faithful mainly because a lack of understanding and sometimes a lack of care and respect.  As he states in an address in 1996 entitled “Faithful and Hopeful” about this process:

       Our aim is not to resolve all our differences or to establish a new ecclesial structure.  Rather, it is, first of all, to learn how to make our differences fruitful.  [...] Common ground, in this sense, is not a new set of conclusions.  It is a way of  
       exploring our differences.  It is a common spirit and ethic of dialogue.  It is a space of trust set within boundaries.  It is a place of respect where we can explore our differences, assured in the understanding that neither is everything “cut-
       and-dried” nor is everything “up for grabs”  (65).

In essence then, the objective is not negotiation, but a pastoral way of hearing how  and why individuals are having difficulty understanding and living the Gospel in the modern age.  It is a mark of humbleness in the ministry of the Church which provides an opportunity to hear the deeper need behind objections leveled against the Church and her teachings.  As I have experienced in my ministry, there is often a lot more behind the individual’s objection to certain teachings and practices of the Church that extends beyond the particular issue being discussed.  Often there is a lack of proper Catechesis, a lack of proper understanding of the particular issue and all that is concerned with it, and sometimes a lack of humbleness and compassion in the presentation of the particular issue that automatically turns the individual away from the Church or dialogue.  Often the individual has heard a “no” or a “though shall not” when the approach should have been a call to a deeper relationship with Christ, self, and other by the pastoral approach of deeper conversation which calls the individual to the challenge of their call to holiness.  There is a contrast between the two approaches, but the contrast can make all the difference between someone who wants to deepen their relationship with Christ, self, and others and someone who sees the Church and its ministers as a set of rules  and enforcers. In the Church we hope to call forth disciples, rather than law abiding citizens.   

As is the dictum in the Church, “faith seeks understanding,” thus the ultimate goal of dialogue proposed by Bernardin is deep understanding and true discipleship.  It presumes that the Church need not be afraid of entering dialogue and debate about relevant issues of meaning because it is through this process that we can come more fully to understand the call to right relationship with God, self, and others.  It is the hope and the duty of the Church to continue to be the light of the world calling all into relationship with Christ who approached the all with an open heart willing to love, to teach, to challenge, and to embrace.