What Will the Catholic Church Look Like in 100 Years? (Part One)

With the election of a new Pope (Leo XIV), the first Pope born in the United States, the first Pope with dual citizenship, the first Pope whose entire formative experience of Church has been only that of the renewal based on the Second Vatican Council (Pope Francis was ordained after that Council but, as is customary with the Jesuit order where they have several extra years of formation before presenting themselves for ordination, he had entered the Jesuits before Vatican II), the first Pope younger than me (!), I thought it would be worthwhile re-visiting a series of bulletin articles I wrote a few years ago called “What Will the Catholic Church Look Like in 100 Years?”.

The genesis for the question in the title was a talk I was asked to give a few times to some seniors at a local Catholic high school who were reading for their theology class the book The Future Church by John Allen. I titled the talk “Back to the Future” (I know, a humorous nod to an old series of movies), because everything that is currently taking place and everything that will take place in the Church is dependent on, inspired by, or even caused by the event we call the Second Vatican Council, which took place over sixty years ago. Until there is a “Vatican III” or its equivalent, the waves of change Vatican II unleashed in the Catholic Church and their repercussions will continue to dictate the possibilities for the future.  At another level, the title “Back to the Future” is even more appropriate because the documents which most define the Second Vatican Council—the three Dogmatic Constitutions on the Liturgy, the Church, and Revelation; the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World; the Decree on Ecumenism; and the Declarations on Religious Freedom and on Non-Christian Religions—are all grounded in attempts to reach back into our Church’s history and re-interpret our understanding of past events, by taking their key insights/concerns and putting them into a wider context, which in turn can offer a pathway forward for the current and future Church.

There are four moments of “reaching back” at Vatican II, which define the possibilities of how the Church will continue to evolve in the future: 1) the First Vatican Council; 2) the Reformation and Counter-Reformation response; 3) the first millennium Church in contrast to the second millennium Church; and 4) the first century change from a Jewish-Palestinian Church to a Gentile-Hellenistic Church.  Each of those moments of Church history dramatically influenced the way the Church saw itself and lived out its mission.  How did the Second Vatican Council re-appropriate insights from those four turning points in our Church’s history, and what might the future Church look like, depending on how we embrace all or only portions of these insights?

Take Vatican I.  This ecumenical council took place in 1869-70 at the same time that revolutionary movements were occurring which would usher in the modern nation of Italy and an end to the Papal States.  The Church was facing a new set of (what have been termed) “modern realities,” which were changing the culture: new nation states with the emphasis on freedom of the press, religion, assembly and more; industrialization and the consequent challenge of child welfare, just wages, fair labor practices, proper sanitation and more; the emergence of modern science and medicine , dependent on autonomous scientific insights; the emergence of historical and social science disciplines which seemingly could “explain” the Church and its beliefs and practices from a more secular point of view; and philosophical movements that were challenging the authority of theology as the keystone of ultimate truth.

At the First Vatican Council the Church’s teaching magisterium reasserted its claim to be the arbiter of what is revealed truth and made the pope the guarantor of that truth by insisting on his ability to intervene anywhere and anytime he saw necessary (universal jurisdiction) and by asserting his authority, under specifically defined criteria, to declare a dogma of faith or morals to be infallibly true.  In the face of the modern world and its changes, including its own loss of political power through the Papal States, the Church at that first Vatican council strengthens the ability of the Pope to stand both symbolically and in practice as a bulwark against any modern movements that seem to threaten its role as arbiter of what constitutes divine truth.  This “anti-modernism” stance led to continual suspicion and condemnation of movements and ideas that looked too “modern,” coming to a head in the early 20^th century with Pope Pius X’s full-throated condemnation of “Modernism” in all its forms. 

In terms of the Church’s self-understanding, such a focus on papal jurisdiction and teaching authority was the culmination of centuries of decisions that slowly strengthened papal authority, going all the way back to the reforms of Pope Gregory VII in the 11^th century.  But this definitive definition of papal jurisdiction and charism of infallibility at Vatican I, coupled with the ever-growing speed of modern communications and transport, led to an increasingly diminished understanding of the local Church.  Instead of each local Church with its bishop being a manifestation of the universal, apostolic Church, with each local bishop equally a successor to the apostles as was the bishop of Rome (Pope), the local Church (and its bishop) become treated more like “branches” and “branch managers” of the central institution in Rome, with everything having to be approved by the Vatican and go through the Vatican. [NB: that image and language of “branch manager” ecclesiology was coined by Bishop Ken Untener of Saginaw Michigan in the 1990s.]  This cementing of an “anti-modern” stance centered on the prerogatives of the Pope as bishop of Rome is so entrenched in the 20^th century Church that many theologians and bishops thought there would be no need for any future ecumenical councils.  The Pope (with the help of the Vatican curia) could handle any or all questions or future changes.

That is why Pope (now St.) John XXIII’s announcement of a new and second Vatican council, using the language of “aggiornamento” and the image of “throwing open the windows” to let fresh air into the Church, was such a bombshell.  Why would the Church need that?  And that is why it was so monumental that the originally prepared first drafts of key documents were rejected by the Council Fathers (after some interesting procedural maneuvering).  The bishops at Vatican II were then free to take up the issues of divine revelation and the power/role of the pope in the most important documents and come to a broader, renewed understanding of both, rather than simply re-affirming in a catechism-like way what was taught at Vatican I and its aftermath.  Instead of focusing exclusively on truth as a set of doctrines that can never change in the course of historical change, Vatican II starts with the person of Jesus as the source of revelation. Doctrine and dogma, then, serve the truth revealed in the person of Jesus Christ but never can exhaust the full meaning of that truth. Therefore, there can be a development in doctrine and dogma. Moreover, in talking about the truths of the faith we are not only allowed but must use the insights historical scholarship and other secular disciplines reveal. Extended out to modern inquiry in general, we have nothing to fear in the pursuit of truth in ways other than definitive statements of Councils and Popes. In fact, we have much to learn, as a Church, from experts in various areas of knowledge; they have a right and responsibility to share their insights with the Church; and there is a hierarchy of truths that need to be kept in mind, lest we focus too quickly on where we differ, rather than on what is essential to faith. 

As to the importance of the pope, Vatican II reaffirms his unique role and authority (including universal jurisdiction and the charism of papal infallibility) but reminds everyone that the Pope is part of a college of bishops, all of whom have a responsibility for the welfare of the universal Church. Moreover, in their collective role as a college of bishops they also share in that charism of infallibility, when necessary, not just the pope by himself.  Also, the pope and bishops must listen to the laity who have their own expertise and remember that the Church is first of all the People of God united in a common baptism, who have an instinct for the “sense of faith” and the ability to show forth a “sensus fidelium” that is equally authoritative.

This brief look at Vatican II in relation to Vatican I gives the first two elements that have and will continue to define the Church over the next few decades: 1) How we allow (or do not allow) the Second Vatican Council’s re-shaping of that earlier one-sided papal-centered ecclesiology to take root and flourish; and 2) How we embrace (or do not embrace) Vatican II’s move from an “anti-modern” stance to a “Church in dialogue with the modern” stance?  As to the first point, Pope Francis’ emphasis on synodality and the need to become a “synodal Church” flows directly from this “reaching back” at Vatican II.  A Church both structured and living the “synodal way” is not as neat and clean—in terms of having clear-cut answers to all the pressing issues of the day—as is a more monarchial-structured Church.  The truncated ecclesiology from Vatican I is not ignored but is given a broader framework, wherein the charisms/gifts of every baptized Christian are essential for the authentic development of the Church.  Will we accept the “synodal way” emphasized by and concretized by Pope Francis in such a manner that it permeates all levels of the Church?  It will require more listening, dialogue and openness to discernment of the Holy Spirit.  It is and will be a bit messier, less condemnatory on some pastoral issues, and more humble in how we assert the truth that we know is at the heart of the Gospel. It will be a Church that accepts people who are doing their best, even if they are not able to fully live the Catholic understanding of faith and morals.  Or, will we, like so much of the world around us, yearn for a Church that again and again authoritatively condemns ideas and people that do not fit into our view of orthodoxy, thereby becoming more clearly defined as an institutional Church but also willing to leave behind so many people who have questions about or who cannot accept such a rigid understanding of what it means to be a faithful Christian?

As to the second point, taken as a whole, I believe the Second Vatican Council affirmed a more “counter-modern” than an “anti-modern” approach.  One that encourages both dialogue and respect for the insights of others, whether they are faith based or not.  But one that maintains a firm vision of a unifying reality and the truth of that reality, even if we humbly acknowledge we do not have a full grasp on what that means.  Vatican II (which even has a Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) demands that the Church dialogue with the modern, secular world and act as leaven within the world rather than living as a fortress keeping the modern world at bay.  However, such dialogue does not mean we accept everything the modern world has to offer. Quite the contrary. In that dialogue we humbly learn with the modern world what the Gospel should support (for example, human dignity of all, the equality of all men and women, the complexity of integrating into our lives our sexuality and childhood upbringing).  But we also stand firmly on faith beliefs and moral principles, which lead us to take a counter-cultural stance when necessary (for example, the modern world’s too easy acceptance of abortion on demand, assisted suicide, indiscriminate warfare, commodifying of human labor in a way that exploits).

In this sense, the future of the Church will be decided by where we draw the line in our dialogue with the modern world.  Some would hope to draw the line quite firmly and quickly and reject the insights of modern science and medicine. No to evolution. No to definitions of brain death given by modern medicine. No to the manipulation of genes and other biotechnology. No to human causation of climate change.  No to artificial intelligence. And so on. Others would draw the line firmly when it comes to social issues such as poverty and immigration, economic disparity, peace and justice. They would insist the modern world is structured to favor the wealthy, the first world, the powerful nations. The Church must side with the poor, the excluded, the victims, they would say.  Some draw the line firmly in terms of marriage and sexuality. No to gay marriage; no openness to gender fluidity; no full equality of roles between men and women. Others would argue that those are the very social issues that need a more dialogical rather than a strictly anti-modernist stance, where the core of the gospel is firmly shared but in a way that is not simply condemnatory of those who are not living it.

In the end, I believe the future Church in light of Vatican II needs to be both modern in many ways and counter-cultural in many other ways, thus the designation “counter” rather than “anti” modern.  For example, it seems as though a stand for the dignity of human life in all stages will be core to that countercultural stance. Opposition to abortion and euthanasia and the death penalty and tactics of modern warfare almost certainly will therefore be part of that stance. But what about gay marriage? Will the Church be able to maintain both its pro-marriage stance as a permanent, faithful, open-to-life relationship between a man and a woman and its support of the equal dignity of all human beings, thus finding a way to support gay marriage within society? Or what about advances in gene modification and other cutting-edge research and technology?  Will the Church find ways to embrace the possibilities such breakthroughs open up but also be a strong moral beacon that they are never morally justified at the expense of the human person?  What about the full embrace of the wisdom and leadership of women within all levels of the Church?  On these and many other issues, I think it remains to be seen just where the lines of dialogue and condemnation will be drawn.  If, however, we embrace the future that the Second Vatican Council opened up in its appropriation of insights from the First Vatican Council, being simply “anti” what we do not agree with will not be the most fruitful way forward.

Next blog: Back to the Future via the Reformation and Counter-Reformation