O'Connor on Quinn: the arguments don't meet - Cardinal John J. O'Connor, Archbishop John R. Quinn - Column

Invited to speak at Oxford, Archbishop John R. Quinn obliged with enough words to fill ten pages of this journal ["The Exercise of the Primacy," July 12]. Moved to respond, and to rebut, Cardinal John J. O'Connor preempted three pages of his tabloid-size archdiocesan newspaper, Catholic New York ["Reflections on Church Governance," July 25].

Now, nobody has asked me to referee this high-level dispute. Also, I don't own this magazine. So I will be brief. I agree with my cardinal archbishop on approximately three-and-a-half of the points he makes, disagree on around twenty-seven, but I'll mention none of the agreements and only one major and one minor disagreement.

The major point of variance: His Eminence's dismissal of His Grace's suggestion that "precisely because of the way issues are dealt with by the curia," certain decisions on momentous questions of church doctrine and polity--among them mandatory priestly celibacy, the ordination of women, contraception--are being "imposed without consultation with the episcopate and without appropriate dialogue," and that this state of affairs (1) is at odds with sound ecclesiology (the bishops are not mere agents of the pope but "judges and teachers of the faith") and (2) has negative impact on the prospects for unity of the Christian churches.

In my reading, this basic Quinn contention is never directly addressed in the O'Connor critique. O'Connor doesn't say, for example, that the world episcopate was in fact consulted on the issues Quinn lists, nor does he say that Quinn is theologically out of step in suggesting that they ought to have been so involved. That's too bad. I hate arguments--whether in political campaigns, familial disputes, or the church--in which the issues are never really joined.

And now for the relatively minor but I think illustrative disagreement. As indicated, Quinn thinks curial control over the celibacy issue is a deterrent to Christian unity. Here is part of O'Connor's rejoinder:

"For some twenty-seven years of my life as a military chaplain, I lived and worked with married chaplains of all religious persuasions on a first-name basis, and knew their wives as good friends. We spoke very frankly on many things, including celibacy. Not once was my celibate status ever invoked by any of them as an obstacle. Indeed, I found many of them highly respectful of celibacy itself."

That passage reminded me, powerfully, of some similar words spoken with similar confidence some thirty years ago, during the Second Vatican Council of blessed memory, by a man who occupies a high place in my personal pantheon of certified good guys: Monsignor George Higgins. At a press conference in Rome, Higgins was asked his opinion of a piece published in the National Catholic Reporter ["Should the Council Look at Celibacy?" by "Sacerdos Occidentalis," June 9, 1965], which gave lots of now-familiar-but-then-novel reasons for answering the question "Yes." Higgins replied that in the course of his work as adviser to the U.S. bishops on issues of social justice he had traveled a great deal, frequently staying in parish rectories and taking part in late-night bull sessions dealing with all manner of churchy matters--and never never never had any any any priest ever ever ever raised a question about priestly celibacy. So it just wasn't an issue.

The next year, after the hullabaloo raised by Sacerdos Occidentalis had not subsided, and (I think) after sociologists had probed lay and clerical opinion about celibacy, Higgins was asked the same question in the same setting. He replied that, though his first answer had been truthful--his fellow priests never talked to him about celibacy--his conclusion was wrong: for many priests, it clearly was an issue. An honorable man, George Higgins.

In the light of this history, I could wish that Cardinal O'Connor would reflect a little further on his experience. I don't wonder that Chaplain O'Connor's married colleagues and their wives were respectful of his celibacy (so am I), nor am I surprised that none of them ever spoke of it as an obstacle to unity. Why should his celibacy be an obstacle? But the question of who would decide such matters, and others that Quinn had named, in what manner and by what processes, should there ever be a move toward a greater degree of Christian unity under papal primacy, will be a matter of concern.

In any case, Archbishop Quinn did not say that celibacy is in itself an obstacle to unity, nor did he take any position on the merits of the issue. For him the problem lies rather in the absence of ongoing, structured participation by the College of Bishops in making decisions for the universal church about significant questions of doctrine and polity. To restate the issue yet again: By definition, the Roman Catholic church is not a democracy, and that is entirely borne out in its practice. By definition again (Vatican II), the church is a collegial body, and that is not at all clear in its practice.

If I were an Orthodox patriarch or an Anglican bishop or a Lutheran minister or a Methodist pastor contemplating the notion of Christian unity under papal leadership, I'd worry about that.

COPYRIGHT 1996 Commonweal Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group