On Criticizing Bishops
Of interest to readers here is a series at Inside Catholic on the role between media and bishops. Deal Hudson offers the opening salvo arguing that critical coverage can be useful. Francis Maier, the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Denver is offering commentary this afternoon. My own position is that Catholic media have a particular obligation to understand and explicate the bishop’s teachings. Those who would make themselves watchdogs often fail in this obligation. I’ve noticed this in particular with coverage of Cardinal Mahony.
Personally I have no use for people who see their purpose as undermining bishops. In matters of prudence, one should attempt to follow a bishop’s position even if one disagrees. Caution should be exercised when claiming something is beyond a bishop’s competence. If something truly is unconscionable, then I would expect nothing less than for a person to follow their conscience. I would expect such a thing more in areas closer to the home rather than say arguments over the minimum wage, immigration policy, or other elements of political realm rather than immediate concerns. So yes I do believe that Republicans should not be saying, “I as a faithful Catholic support the Iraq War.” Likewise I believe Democrats should not say, “I as a faithful Catholic believe the government should establish a lesser form of marriage, civil unions, to accommodate the desires of homosexual couples.” This is an entirely seperate matter than what is fit for theological speculation. Greater freedom is and should be granted in the speculative realm. It is the difference between saying there is ample room in law and tradition for denying communion to politicians who support grave evils and claiming that any bishop who does not do so is a crypto-abortion supporter and enabler.
Comments are closed.
Personally I have no use for people who see their purpose as undermining bishops.
Amen. These self-aggrandized “Faithful Catholics” and their followers are a cult unto themselves. Their main objectives are seemingly to judge, criticize and preen in the limelight as modern day pharisees. Jesus addressed them in Matthew 23:
Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing. (Matthew 23)
Are you saying that the war in Iraq and issues relating to homosexuality are not close enough to home, or “immediate concerns?”
Yes. More precisely they are not issues that cause personal affliction by abstaining from disagreeing with the bishop.
Do you mean public abstention or private abstention?
Some things like relationships, contientous objection, etc. are a private matter that quickly turns public no matter what the actor’s intent was in the first place.
Private disagreement is not an issue. One should write his pastor or bishop if he believes something has been rendered injustly or imprudently. Even public disagreement is not so bad as long as the bishop’s opinion is rendered accurately and is addressed honestly. In my opinion, an honest presentation would allow but not necessarily compel an impartial reader to agree with the bishop’s position as the author presented it over the author’s own opinion. Getting back to your objection, I would agree that the private forum is preferable to the public forum for offering dissent. That an external forum may make a person’s dissent public is not something for which I would fault a person. For example, Bishop Lugo in Peru is acting in what he believes to be a just way, but is also trying to work with the Vatican to reconcile his action and in public is stating the Vatican’s concerns are reasonable. Without endorsing his underlying action, his tact has been exemplary on the matter.
The moral clout of the episcopate as a group isn’t exactly big these days. While only a small percentage of priests committed sex abuse, it happened in basically every diocese, some worse than others. The majority of bishops in office then/now are guilty to varying degrees. Once they got hit where it hurts, things began to move. Reports and studies had been available for decades, but the bishops ignored them. Anyone who’s read “Sacrilege” or “Sex, Priests and Secret Codes” will never be the same. Getting physically ill is a likely consequence of reading them. Our ‘favorite’/last straw was when the bishop of San Diego sent every Catholic a letter, asking for donations to pay for the sex abuse bill/bankruptcy. I said “Well, if you hadn’t been screwed the first time around, here’s your chance.”
Oh, and we’re Republicans and support gay civil marriage. My wife and I are not gonna sit with family members one day and then vote to discriminate them the next. It’s just not gonna happen, no matter what bishops say. It would be unconscionable. I recommend Fr. Thomas Reese’s article on the subject. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/thomas_j_reese/2008/05/gay_marriage_1.html
Gerald – Is there a reason you don’t talk like this on your own blog? You blogged about Bishop Robinson and his new book, and the tone was clearly that he is a “bad guy.” It inspired comments that said as much, and you didn’t do much to give an alternative view. Yet, you come here with a viewpoint that suggests you might be sympathetic to Robinson’s cause. Which is it?
Robinson, btw, is speaking here in Toronto on Sunday (at the United Church of Canada’s theological school, mind you) and I plan to go. I’ll give a report.
Michael, you must have missed the -ENDLESS- comment threads on homosexuality on my blog. They are STILL arguing. In them I talked just like that. Subsequently, many people stopped linking to me. In fact, many blogs discussed my stance. Here are two of the posts, with hundreds of comments.
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality.html
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2008/04/sex-and-authoritarian-personality.html
I didn’t call Robinson a ‘bad guy’. He had been rebuked by the Australian bishops and banned by 2 Cali bishops for ‘dissent’. He makes it very clear he ‘dissents’. I wanted to order the book but it was sold out. I might make it to USF on June 13th for the talk.
I now specialize in offending everyone not just ‘liberals’ :P
I guess I have never taken seriously the charge that clericalism caused or further enabled the sexual abuse crisis. Are we to take seriously that bishops were pro-sexual abuse? Are to maintain that the bishops were trying to teach others that sexual abuse was okay? In both cases I think the answer is an obvious no. This is not to say that particular people weren’t manipulative in seeking silence to assuage their guilt or embarassment. It is not dissent to say, “I just can’t suppress this anymore: Father X having sex with 14-year-old boys is wrong.”
M.Z. – Clericalism, of course, is non synonymous with “pro-sexual abuse.”
Oh, there were only a handful of bishops known to have actively abused children themselves. But, the common policy was to cover it up, transfer the priests to new hunting grounds, for decades, and to keep it “in-house”. Putting image first, and children second. I really recommend the book “Sacrilege”.
Oh, there were only a handful of bishops known to have actively abused children themselves.
There have been bishops who have killed people drunk driving as well. For whatever reason that hasn’t been seen as evidence of clericalism.
But, the common policy was to cover it up, transfer the priests to new hunting grounds, for decades, and to keep it “in-house”.
There is a difference between covering something up and not making something public. Regardless, not holding a press conference isn’t evidence of clericalism.
Putting image first, and children second.
Bumper sticker rhetoric.
I really recommend the book “Sacrilege”.
I can hardly imagine why. Indulgence in crime stories is just another version of pornography.
There is a difference between covering something up and not making something public.
I’d say keeping child molesting priests in circulation is more than simply “not making something public.”
Had the bishops made the events public to the rest of the Church, I could see your point. Otherwise, all you’re doing is engaging in defense tactics, which is, of course, a huge part of the problem.
More importantly it isn’t clericalism regardless of how many people claim it is. This hobby horse justifying all matters of dissent gets tiresome.
Had the bishops made the events public to the rest of the Church, I could see your point. Otherwise, all you’re doing is engaging in defense tactics, which is, of course, a huge part of the problem.
Whatever.
Gerald,
on one of your posts you recommend reading Fr.Reese’s article on The Washington Post. I have just read it. Maybe my Bible is old, or the teachigns I received as a Catholic through my whole life are outdated, but the only thing I can say about this priest Reese, is that what he preaches there is blatant apostasy.
apostasy is a bit more than wanting to allow gay unions, it’s a renunciation of an entire faith.
Looks like the cafeteria is now open! And the dissent du jour is…..
Whatever.
Nice.
MZ: You seem to have serious disdain for the safety of children. The Church should be open to everyone, not just children with parents who can protect them from predators from within. What is your solution to the child abuse problem, or do you think it is not a problem at all?
Given your premise that I have a disdain for children, I don’t really see how anything can come from me answering your question. My solution to such things are to use the criminal process against those who abuse children.
My solution to such things are to use the criminal process against those who abuse children.
And how is that to happen if the Church doesn’t “go public” with the situation?
Gerald,
on May 28th, at 10:06 pm you say: “apostasy is a bit more than wanting to allow gay unions, it’s a renunciation of an entire faith”. Exactly. What is more important about Fr. Reese’s article is not what he says, but what he implicitly refuses to say. Because his over-all duty as a Catholic Priest, is to proclaim the Godspell, clearly , faithfully and loudly, thus being faithful to the mandate of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that you can find in Matthew, 28:19.
My understanding is that , since Fr.Reese refuses to preach the Truth and shed the Light of Jesus amidst confusion, that’s apostasy. Be it for for fear, conviction, pride or love for the applause of the world. As Apostasy being also the denial of the Truth, please read number 675 of the Catholic Church Cathecism. I tried to find a trace of a Catholic priest in that article of Fr. Reese, and I couldn’t.
As for the Washington Post giving space for expression of religious thought, I wonder how many times did the Washington Post contact Saint Pius of Pietrelcina, allowing him to preach the Truth from such a similar space.
As best I’m aware, Fr. Reese is in good standing with the Jesuits and the proper forum for charging him with any ecclesiastical crimes would be the Superior General. Disagreeing with his opinion is certainly within your rights, but Fr. Reese has rights and for such a serious charge should have the opportunity to offer a defense.
Fr. Reese didn’t say the Catholic Church should have gay marriages, he simply stated his support for a secular institution – for conservative reasons. IMO, the state shouldn’t try to tell the church what it considers marriage and vice versa. In particular since the CA Supreme Court said their ruling would not require churches to perform gay weddings.
Since the only majority of people opposing gay unions is among those of retirement age – with a vast majority of 18-29 year olds being in favor, the future is obvious.
“Since the only majority of people opposing gay unions is among those of retirement age – with a vast majority of 18-29 year olds being in favor, the future is obvious.”
While there is more support for gay marriage among the young than among the old, there isn’t a majority in favor of it among either group. In any case, the fact that something is likely to be popular at some point in the future is hardly a strong argument in favor of it.
This blog post is entirely vague and I suspect there is something the author is trying to convey without offending. Regarding bishops and their teachings, it has become terribly clear that these are men caught up in protecting their power and polishing their image. This has led to the rightful suspicion of Catholic bishops by young American Catholics.
Vatican II attempted to make clear that teaching strictly from authority no longer worked in our world, yet bishops today have seemingly forgotten this. The Church teachers seem to present their theology as gospel truth backed only by the claim that because of their office, their opinions must be heeded. I find this approach to be incredibly alienating to Catholics of my generation and will have to change if the Church is to be more than a gathering of obscenely conservative radicals.
In terms of the discussion of the sex abuse scandal, I find it monstrous that people on this forum still believe that a cover up never existed. As a Catholic from the Boston Archdiocese, I know all too well that there was a cover up which was quite criminal in context. It irks me even today that Bernard Law is spending his retirement in Rome rather than a cell for his crimes. Call it a cover up or mismanagement or PR work, but the American Catholic church has erred greatly, and perhaps is alienating Catholics even more by not learning from their mistakes.
“Putting image first, and children second.”
Bumper sticker rhetoric.
It’s truth. Too bad you don’t understand it. The bishops who covered things up are guilty of enabling child abuse. They should be defrocked.
In terms of the discussion of the sex abuse scandal, I find it monstrous that people on this forum still believe that a cover up never existed.
Amen.
Burn strawman! Burn!
There is a difference between covering something up and not making something public.
M.Z. – I take this to mean that you do not believe that there was a cover-up. If we are misinterpreting you, please tell us how.
M.Z.
“As best I’m aware, Fr. Reese is in good standing with the Jesuits and the proper forum for charging him with any ecclesiastical crimes would be the Superior General. Disagreeing with his opinion is certainly within your rights, but Fr. Reese has rights and for such a serious charge should have the opportunity to offer a defense.”
I have no problem in presenting my point to whoever you recommend, I would summarize it like this and I don’t hide behind a nickname: “I tried to find a trace of a Catholic priest in that article of Fr. Reese, and I couldn’t. And I consider that speaking like that as a Catholic priest from a worldwide recognized newspaper, is one form of apostasy, leading the faithful to confusion, deception and scandal”.
This is my opinion, and as you said, I have the right to state it. But as a Catholic, it is also my duty to state it. Viceversa, if you happen to know personally Fr. Reese, please invite him to give his opinion at this Forum.