Representation Matters

One comment I understood in all the World Cup coverage this week was that “representation matters” on the French team. The players of color represent France as would any white team member. Colonials are fully incorporated into the citizenry when it comes to soccer.

I heard the same phrase from a woman who is a Black Briton who was confronted by a lady-in-waiting really? – about where she is from. She is from England, born and bred. The age of colonialism is over.

Of course, I think about who’s represented in our Church.

Christine Schenk has an Advent reflection on Magnificat Day, which is how I think of December 8 because we sing it, even if we don’t pray it until later in the month. That’s a less problematic concept, theologically, for me, than the Immaculate Conception. In fact, it’s the most inspiring aspect of Marian veneration: she’s naming names, rejoicing in strength.

In between prayerful waiting and poetic expression, Schenk reflects on the Pope’s comments to America that Katie Lacz and I addressed in last week’s blogs. Chris highlights the mystery of Francis; how he can be so welcoming of everyone in a Synod process –

But he — and many like him — are regrettably blind on the issue of whom the Holy Spirit may be calling to ordained ministry. 

It is reductive to say ministry belongs only to the “Petrine” theological principle. As defined, this principle restricts ministry to male clerics. In fact there are many more laypersons — both male and female — ministering in the church than ordained persons.

Nothing like a good dose of reality to confront an outdated theology. I wind up thinking that Francis may be expressing his love, if love is the willingness to be vulnerable. Certainly, he proves himself vulnerable every time he trots out these undeveloped theologies of women.

But enough. I am encouraged today by Christopher White’s first entry in a new NCR series on the Vatican because he focuses on one American priest’s experience of Vatican II and how it influenced the leadership of his diocese. That diocese is Seattle, whose archbishop was the legendary Raymond Hunthausen, who incurred the wrath of the Vatican in the years after the Council – White says it more
diplomatically:

[he] was placed under investigation by the Vatican over liturgical and doctrinal concerns, among them advocating for greater leadership roles for women and support for the LGBTQ community.
Hunthausen also became a point of deep controversy for advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament at the height of the Cold War. Ultimately, Pope John Paul II assigned then-Auxiliary Bishop Donald Wuerl to take over key areas of authority in the Seattle Archdiocese.

The Seattle priest profiled by White is Michael Ryan who worked with Hunthausen and now is pastor of the cathedral. It’s important to remember those who were visionaries in their time and to remind ourselves that the Vatican II spirit did not totally disappear from the leadership of the American church. That generation is aging out, however, and the Seattle story is not uncomplicated. The archbishop now is Paul Etienne, who was one of my favorites to head the USCCB. His purchase of a new residence, after espousing “simplicity” when first appointed, has attracted the notice of lay leaders of Heal Our Church, advocates for more open records on clergy abuse. Katie Collins Scott wrote that article.

Which reminds me of an important article by Massimo Faggioli and Hans Zollner on the abuse crisis and the synod. I find their commentary in NCR especially true when they say: “

If there is an issue on which Catholics in many countries will decide to stay or to leave, it is the reform of the church as a credible response to the abuse crisis… [Those participants in the Synod process] do not want a “Counter-Reformation” like the one that reacted against the Protestant reformers in the 16th century. What they want is a Catholic reform that gives new life to existing structures, is not afraid to get rid of structures that no longer have a meaningful function and surely won’t in the future, and is courageous to create new ones…

These historians want more specific remedies for “the systemic issues underlying the double crisis: of abuse and of lack of trust in leadership in the church — and the consequent need for structural changes, especially in church governance and models of ministry.”

However, I find that in trying to elevate the abuse crisis they seem to devalue at least one of the structural changes they may be referring to in the selections above: “On the other hand, some — including those leading Germany’s national synodal way process — see themselves exposed to the accusation that they are using the abuse cases as a pretext for pushing through frequently made church-political demands such as the ordination of women, without having gone through a genuine spiritual discernment process.”

I don’t think considering structural reforms needs to leave abuse survivors behind or uses their pain for political gains. Reform and support for survivors aren’t in opposition to one another. We can do – and have done – both at the same time. Perhaps these authors are reflecting the situation of the church in some European countries which are less attuned to the implications of the abuse first revealed in the United States. We have pushed for reparations for those harmed by the church’s cover-up of these terrible sins, which is the kind of representation these survivors need. We must be sure they continue to know that they matter.