Catholicism and Dissent

Recently, appearing as a guest on Real Time With Bill Maher, Catholic editor Andrew Sullivan said something which I found fascinating. According to Sullivan, it's a common mistake to think of the Catholic Church as the hierarchy, or the clergy, with the Pope at the head. The Church is primarily the people, he said, and the Catholic people, by and large, are not stuck in the dark ages, as their leadership may sometimes suggest. Evidently, there was an actual decree to this effect; some ecumenical council or something, which decided that "the people are also the pope". It would appear that, within Catholicism, there is a mysterious system of checks and balances at play.

This clarified something I've long tried to understand.

Catholicism is not it's hierarchy, any more than America is it's government. Nonetheless, the true disciple is one who criticizes his church, just as the true patriot criticizes his government; because he wants what is best for it. All Americans want their politicians to live up to the principles set forth in the Constitution, and all Christians want their clergy to live up to the principles set forth in the Gospel.

If I call myself a proud American, it is because I am proud of my identification with the progressive spirit in which the country was founded; it does not mean that I am proud of the job my government is doing. Similarly, if I call myself a proud Christian, it is because I am proud to align myself with the principles espoused by Jesus, and with the legacy of saints whom he inspired to unite under the banner of his blessed name; it does not mean that I am proud of the calculated maneuverings of political clerics, who only claim to represent the members of Christ's Church.

I would ask anyone who disagrees with this, and wishes to see dissent rooted out of the Church, to familiarize himself or herself with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. In addition to forgiving sins, giving sight to the blind, casting out demons, and sacrificing his life for the cause of pacifism, Christ spent most of his time voicing his dissent. The Gospel is full of admonitions he delivered to the Pharisees; the religious hierarchy of his time.

And one need only look to the lives of the greatest saints, to see how Christ (in and through them) has responded to Catholic authorities over the ages:

Augustine famously declared, "The Church is a whore, and she's my mother." Does this sound like unqualified approval and submission? Or, rather, like criticism from someone in a unique position to criticize?
The most beloved of all saints, Francis, who may have been the only Christian to ever fully confess and live the teaching of Jesus Christ, sought the Pope's blessing for his monastic order, while respectfully proclaiming his own ascetical way of life as a more authentic immitation of Christ.

Saint Catherine is still honored for her shockingly bold, yet deferential, letters to the Pope, pressuming to counsel him on various matters and exhorting him to be worthy of his great office.

Saint Padre Pio was hounded by Church authorities for most of his life, and had to continually submit his clearer vision to the muddier dictates of church politics. Until the end of his life, he was hemmed in and treated as a charlatan by many high ranking Catholics.

Likewise, outside of Catholicism, there have been many "saints" whom the Church still cannot officially recognize, or cease from persecuting. It is a shame that they must be summarily dismissed from Catholic study, since these members of the more esoteric Christian Church are among some of the most authentic and uncompromising followers of Christ.

Women like 'Peace Pilgrim' don't observe the Sabbath, but they take Christ's words seriously when he says, "Go, sell all that you own, distribute it to the poor, come follow me, and you shall have treasure in heaven... For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." This woman gave away everything but a few "essentials" she could fit in her pockets, and walked in the footsteps of Christ, preaching about spiritual wealth.

Did she know less about Christianity than the pope, who has his own city, -- and needs an entire city in order to hoard the massive amount of material wealth acquired through centuries of war and extortion; enough to feed the whole world ten times over?

Men like George Fox never observed the symbolic ritual known as The Mass, but they received the true Eucharist when they meditated in silence and were filled with the living spirit of Christ. Unlike so many who only go through the motions and believe they have been changed, these people proved by their works that they had been utterly transformed; for they lived modestly, peacefully, and suffered years of imprisonment and persecution for their faith.

Naturally, the Church gets very uneasy when men start preaching and living like the Early Christians, as Fox did, with divine authority: "You will say, 'Christ saith this', and 'the apostles say this', but what canst thou say? Art thou a Child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from the Lord?"

Fox has his own things to say, but he undoubtedly took seriously the words of Christ: "resist not evil.. turn the other cheek.. pray for your enemies... return good for evil." A true Christian, he became a pacifist, and endured many beatings without ever returning a blow. All this, while the Catholic Church was still torturing people for conscientious objection to war.

And, of course, there are individuals who do not trace their spiritual awakening to Jesus in any way, yet, who lived thoroughly Christian, or Christ-like, lives. What of them? Who among us has the arrogance to suppose that he or she is pleasing to God, while a man like Gandhi warrants divine wrath and hellfire? But this is precisely what the Catholic so-called authorities believe, to this day. We have yet to see Gandhi canonized as a Catholic saint and, I dare say, we will have to wait a very long time before we see something like that; for it will mean that the leadership of the Catholic Church has finally come to its senses.

While leadership, by definition, is supposed to be progressive, we find the exact opposite in the case of the Catholic hierarchy. They have yet to declare anything in advance of public opinion, but, when they do come out with some new declaration, it is invariably something which the people have long known and campaigned for themselves. They do not challenge the people, as they should, but are continually challenged by the people. For example, the significance of Mary in Catholicism is due, not to the clergy, but, mainly to the people, who loved and honored her long before the Church was obliged to take a similar notice.

We only need to consider how many times, in ways great and small, the Roman Catholic Church has reversed its position and changed its policies (its doctrines) over time. A cursory glance at history should suffice to make this fact obvious to even the most brainwashed and unconscious Catholics. In light of this fact, we must either confess that the Church has been (and, pressumably, still is) mistaken on many issues, or, confess that revelation has been (and, pressumably, still is) ongoing; that doctrine is continually subject to revision, as God increasingly makes His will known in the world.

My own contention is that the Church has yet to live up to revelations made on the Sermon On The Mount, and has a long way to go before it can look squarely at the words of Paul the Apostle, when he wrote, "...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

It is very telling that the disciple who was named the foundation of the church (and is often called "the first pope"), namely, Peter, is the one who cut off the centurian's ear when they came for Jesus, -- essentially, attempting to defend Christ by betraying Christ's core teaching. Even Judas did not betray Christ's teaching when he told the Romans where to find the master.

It is very telling that, at another moment of truth, "the first pope" denied (three times) that he even knew the Lord. Before Christ was crucified, "the rock" upon which the Church was founded had already betrayed him and crumbled like a clod of dirt.

Lastly, it is telling that, of all the disciples, only John, and not Peter, would accompany Jesus to the cross, where, in the final moments, he would be told to look upon Mary as his own mother.

Evidently, Peter -- or the Church which claims succession from him -- is still denying Christ, while John's spiritual heirs are still standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Mary at the foot of the cross, too busy following the Lord, and protecting his mother, to be overly concerned with the administration of worldly religion.