Subject: RE: Pope Francis to Europe: A Pep Talk

Regarding implementation, here is an assessment by theologian and ecclesiologist Richard Gaillardetz (from his essay “The Pastoral Orientation of Doctrine” in the recently released book Go Into the Streets! The Welcoming Church of Pope Francis):

Will or will not this pope reverse this or that controversial church teaching? However, the “will he or won’t he” question misconstrues how doctrine develops. It is a common misconception that doctrinal change and development occur primarily by ecclesiastical fiat. In fact, history shows that doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particular doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God’s transforming love. The gradual shift in the church’s condemnation of usury offers us a classic example of what I have in mind here. That teaching was not reversed in a single papal decree. Rather, there was a gradual and halting pastoral discernment that the teaching, in its classical formulation, no longer served the central values it was intended to protect, namely, the welfare of the poor. … Magisterial teaching should come at the end of our tradition’s lively engagement with a particular question, not as a way of preempting its consideration.
Certainly, church leaders are to be faithful to our doctrinal heritage. They serve that heritage best, not by wielding the doctrine of the church as a club, but by heeding Pope Francis’s injunction to abandon a place of safety and certitude, moving from the center to the periphery. As they meet people ‘in the streets,’ listening to their concerns and attending to their wounds, they will know … how the church’s doctrine can best be employed to announce God’s solidarity with the poor and suffering of this world and the profligate mercy of God. This is the primary purpose of church doctrine, and in reminding us of this, Francis stands as its authentic guardian.

While this confirms why we have had little success in getting Francis to change doctrine, it indicates just how significant the Francis strategy is: he is urging the grass roots to “speak up” not as an idealization of lay participation but because “speaking up” is the only way change is going to happen.

Furthermore, “change” first comes with pastoral practice; doctrinal formulations follow, rather than lead. It is no wonder that Francis is focusing on the pastoral process of “encounter, dialogue and accompaniment”. It is no wonder that he is leaving doctrine aside. If we see his doctrinal “pause button” as some kind of evasion we are missing the point.

This makes our strategic engagement with local gatherings all the more important. It is not about grass roots support for doctrinal change, it is about confronting injustice at the local level so that “pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particular doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God’s transforming love”. The emphasis upon God’s mercy is central to changing local pastoral practice. Doctrinal change is at the tail end of this process, and should not wag the dog. Indeed, we are not talking about “doctrinal change” (as if it were a mere reversal) but about a paradigm shift, a fresh way of looking at how to “mediate the saving message of God’s transforming love”.

And this process is daunting (which is why it is tempting to seek a papal edict as a work around). In the end, the source of consensus is the Spirit, who is available to everyone.

How can we frame our encouragement (or, perhaps, simple monitoring) of local gatherings so that “God’s transforming love” is at the center of it?

Just musings in response to Gaillardetz.

Clyde{jcomments on}