Who gets to decide?

After the mass murder of Moslems at worship in several New Zealand mosques some commentators pointed to the emergence of Christian nationalism as a factor encouraging such behavior. There was an immediate response from other commentators arguing that such behavior was the exact opposite of Christian values and the Gospel message.

Not long ago I came across a short essay by some author who claimed that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi wasn’t Catholic because she supports reproductive rights, essentially the right to an abortion should a woman so choose. The debate that followed both examples raised an important question. Who defines what it means to be Christian?

From a canon law perspective, anyone who is baptized is a Christian. If you were baptized in a Catholic Church or came into communion with the Catholic Church, then you are Catholic. Even if you send a letter of resignation from the Faith to the bishop, the Church still considers you to be a Catholic. The trouble is that when people debate what it means to be Christian or a Catholic, they are not even thinking of the technical definition. They are thinking of their understanding of Christianity or Catholicism and anyone who has a different understanding doesn’t make the grade.

This isn’t anything new. Christians have been arguing with one another since the early years of the church over what it means to be a Christian and who qualifies for that label. The situation got more confusing during the Middle Ages when ethnic identity and religion became intertwined. One might not know much of Catholic teaching, morality or worship but would consider himself Catholic because he was French or Italian and Catholicism was tied up with that ethnic and cultural identity.

We see this phenomenon at work today. For example, the killer in New Zealand posted a lengthy manifesto online that explained his self-justification for killing Moslems. The manifesto spoke of the crusades and a history of conflict between Christians and Moslems. The manifesto warned of an Islamic threat to overwhelm European, which is largely Christian culture. The killer seems to think that he is a foot soldier in a contemporary version of the crusades. The man obviously lacks any appreciation of what the Gospels ask of anyone who claims to follow Jesus. However, he sees himself defending Christian culture in the same bloody way that Christian kings and knights saw themselves defending Christendom for many centuries. Is it valid to define Christianity by the self-identification of a people as Christians, regardless of their values and behavior, but more as a cultural identity?

Those who reject the idea of Christian nationalism separate the religion from the culture. They require faith and a life consistent with Christian teaching as the standard for identification as a Christian. For them a Christian is someone who takes Scripture seriously and attempts to live by the law of love. The Christian is one who practices the beatitudes. The Christian is one who is truly a disciple of Jesus Christ.

This brings us to the case of Nancy Pelosi. She professes a Catholic faith which she has practiced all of her life and has raised her children in the Church. Her policy positions usually reflect the best in Catholic social teaching, with the notable exception of her position on abortion. Does her opinion on that one issue preclude her from identifying as a Catholic? In the minds of some people, it would.

If we return to church law, we find that there are some teachings that must be accepted in faith. These are fundamental dogma that one encounters in the Creed we say at Mass each Sunday. There is also definitive doctrine which must be accepted in faith. These are infallible teachings that have been acknowledged as such by the Church. There is also authoritative church teaching which is the official position of the Church on some issue, usually related to the Church’s moral teaching. Finally, there is prudential teaching that is the considered reflection of the Church leaders on some social issue. Authoritative teaching asks that the believer submit to the wisdom of the Church on the teaching but doesn’t demand that the teaching be accepted in faith.

The issue of abortion presents a particularly difficult situation. Some of the earliest writings in the Church after the New Testament specifically speak against abortion. So, it is a long-standing teaching in the church. While there has been debate over when the fetus has achieved personhood, abortion per se has always been condemned. However, as a moral teaching of the church, one would normally consider abortion in the category of authoritative teaching.

As a canon lawyer, I would argue that our definition of Christian and Catholic must be broad. Being baptized is the legal criterion for being a Christian. It is a broadly inclusive definition. However, I also believe that one’s faith should be more than just a vague cultural identity. For the Catholic Christian one’s faith must be rooted in and give expression to the Gospels. It must reach to the core of our being and be a source of meaning and purpose in our lives. It must be a context in which we can discern wrong from right and help us to be better people. It should inspire us to make the world a better place. It must be more than just the team of which we consider ourselves a member.

Of course, a potential problem is that my insights might be different from you. What I perceive as making the world a better place, according to the vision of my religious tradition, may be perceived by you as creating a nightmare. Again, this is nothing new. There have been conflicts within the church from the earliest years of Christianity.  We see similar conflicts within other religious traditions as well.  At times these conflicts have ended in violence. At other times these conflicts have ended in division. The only cure for these conflicts is dialogue.  If we can continue to speak with one another and strive to understand the concerns that frame the other person’s perception of the issues over which we disagree, there is always the possibility that we can begin to understand their position and find common ground.