by Fr. Richard G. Cipolla, PhD, DPhil (Oxon)
![]() |
| CUA campus in Washington, D.C. |
It is indeed a good thing when a president of a Catholic
University takes the time to write an Op-Ed piece for a Catholic news agency. John Garvey, President of the
Catholic University of America is the author of such a piece, his monthly column for Catholic News Service, that was recently
published in the Arlington Catholic Herald, among other diocesan paper.
The Op-Ed piece is titled “One, holy, Catholic”. In this editorial he expresses his deep
concern over what he sees as division in the Church between those he calls
“progressives” and “traditionalists”. I
share Garvey’s concern over the divisions in the Church, but I believe that the
lens through which he sees the problem distorts and makes impossible to
understand what the real conflict in the Church is about.
Garvey reminds us that this summer marks the fiftieth
anniversary of Humanae Vitae and the
statement of dissent by a significant group of theologians, all from the United
States. Garvey claims that the Pope Paul
VI’s upholding the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church against those
theologians who wanted that teaching changed provoked “an unprecedented crisis
of authority in the American Catholic Church.”
I would ask Garvey to remember in the first place that there is no
American Catholic Church. There is the
Catholic Church in America, or much better still, in the United States. He summarizes what has happened in the past
fifty years in this way:
Abortion and sterilization are commonplace. Artificial birth
control has opened “wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering
of moral standards”. Governments favor “those contraceptive methods which they
consider more effective…(and) may even impose their use on everyone”.
Garvey then says: “In 1968 the pope’s critics envisioned a
different future”. What was that future
that the dissident theologians envisioned?
What did they think the future of marriage and sexual morality would be
like once the sexual intercourse was cut off from both the natural biological
purpose of the act and the basic understanding of sexual intercourse in a
Catholic marriage, when that act was cut off from the possibility of new life,
that possibility that prevents that intimate act from being merely an act of
closed-in selfishness?
In a somewhat curious defense of the dissidents, Garvey
tells us that the statement of dissent
“generously” (!) acknowledged that the pope had a “distinct role” in the
Church. This sounds like what Anglicans believe about the Archbishop of
Canterbury, a primus inter pares,
someone who comes last in the procession, but with no doctrinal authority at
all. The “distinct role” of the Pope in
matters of doctrine is clearly defined by both the First and Second Vatican
Councils.



























