Enough Already! Reflections on the Need to Reject Emotion Based Response

As the abuse scandal goes on, we’re constantly bombarded with blogs, editorials, and commentaries that amount to saying “I’m angry and I’m going to tell everyone about everything I dislike about the Church and why I think it failed me!” I am not talking about actual victims here. They’re right to be angry over the pain suffered. I’m certainly not qualified to judge when they’re healed and would not dare to presume to tell them they should “get over it.” 

Instead, I’m talking about Catholics, not personally affected, who are letting their emotions drive their understanding of the situation. I get it that shock and anger are natural reactions to becoming aware of this wrongdoing. But if our response is led by emotion, we will not achieve any meaningful reform. Instead, we will only respond in a way that satisfies the emotion. We see this in the rush to judgment. Yes, certain bishops did conceal wrongdoing. Yes, we had a predator work his way up to the rank of cardinal. These things should not have happened and we need a reform.

The problem is, a meaningful reform requires us to be rational. We can’t just accuse our usual suspects, demand they be gotten rid of, and expect things to fall into place. But if you read the endless articles out there, you usually learn about the writer’s politics by the “reforms” they propose. We’re constantly bombarded by calls for women priests and the ending of celibacy on one hand, accusations against Vatican II and the “lavender mafia” on the other.

But when you think about these arguments, they don’t really make sense. Women priests won’t eliminate sexual abuse. It seems like every other week there’s a story in the news about a female teacher who sexually abused a student. Ending celibacy won’t end it. Protestant denominations have similar rates of sexual abuse, and schools—an institution that emphatically does not require celibacy—have higher rates of sexual abuse. Vatican II didn’t cause it. A high percentage of cases preceded Vatican II or involved priests ordained before Vatican II. As for the “lavender mafia,” that’s an ill-defined term that basically amounts to saying that some corrupt people in the Church with same sex attraction have received positions of authority and work together in some manner.

Arguing that these things be “changed” is not a blueprint for reform. It’s just assuming that everything would be fine if we just got rid of what we dislike. True reform requires an investigation into how these things could have happened and what could be reasonably done to prevent it from happening again.

Unfortunately, when we let emotions get in the way, we demand instantaneous fixes and think “reasonably” is a code word for “token reform.” But to avoid a “feel good” bandaid that achieves nothing or possibly to assume guilt until proven innocent, we need to evaluate the situation with the willingness to understand both what has happened and what the Church can do in response.

A reasonable reform (by which I mean a reform established by reason, not “the minimum reform we can get away with”) involves looking at the facts of the matter, determining what worked, what failed, who did their job, and who failed to do so. It means we think about the long term fix and don’t settle for scapegoats.

For example, consider the Pope’s words during the September 25 press conference, (ZENIT translation) for which critics accused him of being “tone deaf”:

I take Pennsylvania’s Report, for example, and we see that up to the first years of the 70’s there were so many priests who fell into this corruption. Then, in more recent times, they diminished because the Church realized that it had to fight another way.  In past times, these things were covered up. They were covered up also at home when an uncle violated a niece when the father violated the children. They were covered up because it was a very great shame. It was the way of thinking in past centuries, and of the past century. There is a principle in this that helps me very much to interpret history: a historical event is interpreted with the hermeneutics of the time in which the event happened, not with today’s hermeneutics. 

He’s right. To understand the behavior—and to understand is not to condone—we must understand the mindset that made it possible. In the past, things were hidden out of shame. That doesn’t justify the silence. But it does help us understand why things were tolerated in the past. If we understand them, we can try to change them. But if we don’t try to understand them—if we think being angry is enough—we will never overcome the evil.

I think we have a tendency to “fill in the blanks” when we have partial information. We insert the motives we think explain an evil and treat it as truth, demanding we be refuted even though the onus of proof falls on us to prove our angry assumptions true. Moreover, when proof is given to the contrary, we claim it is part of a coverup—because we “know” it must be false. Why do we “know” it’s false? Because it contradicts our preconceived notions about what happened. “Innocent until proven guilty” becomes “presumption of guilt that can never be disproved.”

This kind of emotional response will not reform the Church. It will instead lead people to assume that any solution that doesn’t immediately satisfy their need for vengeance is a coverup or attempt at stonewalling. That kind of mistrust eventually leads to schism while the problem goes on... and probably continues to exist in the rebellious group that thinks they eliminated the problem by rejecting the Pope.

If we want to truly reform the Church, we need to recognize when our emotions are interfering with seeking out truth. As St. Paul warns (Ephesians 4:26-27), “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun set on your anger, and do not leave room for the devil.”

I think at this point, we’re leaving plenty of room for the devil and he’ll take advantage of it as long as we let emotion take first place.

Reflections for the Struggling

There are a certain set of Catholics who began by supporting Pope Francis but reached a point where certain news (the Barrios case and the Vigano allegations, or the refinement of the teaching on the death penalty) led them to think their previous trust was misplaced. Some of my followers have asked me to blog on this. I’ll certainly do my best. Of course, since I believe that the Pope has done nothing to warrant revoking my trust, this attempt may disappoint them. We may end up yelling to each other, “Why the hell are you so blind?”

I don’t intend to be arrogant or condescending to the Catholics who want to be faithful. Instead, I hope to give the struggling Catholics other things to consider than the either-or dilemma they see no way out of.

The Credibility and Proof Issues

I think we need to keep in mind that allegations are not proof of wrongdoing. The claims can be false—even if the accuser sincerely believes them to be true—or the reasons for the actions remove culpability. If the claims are false or reasons remove culpability, then these actions are not valid reasons to reject the Pope. If Vigano’s accusations are false, then we can’t use them as a reason to mistrust the Pope. 

At the current time, there has been no proof to those accusations. The people cited as proof have refused to provide their own testimony and the so-called independent confirmation have been rejected. Benedict XVI’s secretary has called the claim “fake news” and those who were said to have assisted Vigano draft the letter have now denied it. We have gone from seeing claims that Pope Francis willfully overturned Benedict’s censure of McCarrick shrivel into claims that the Pope may have issued some kind of request.

The problem then is we don’t have a basis to justify an accusation against the Pope. Those American bishops [†] who say they found the claims “credible” do not do so from evidence. They did so from having a favorable view of Archbishop Vigano’s character. One problem I have with this is it indirectly says that they don’t have as favorable a view of the Pope’s character if they would accept Vigano’s ipse dixit statements as having merit. They have made demands of the Pope, but not similar demands of Archbishop Vigano. 

It’s not for me to question those bishops’ motives, but I find it a little troublesome.

The FUD Factor 

“FUD” stands for “Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. It certainly fits the undermining of the Papacy over the last five years.

Certain Catholics have been hostile to Pope Francis since before he became Pope [§]. They have consistently given a negative interpretation to his actions, attempting to portray them as proof of his being a heretic. They take soundbites that seem terrible when taken in isolation and treat that isolated quote as the whole. Thus the Pope is portrayed as thinking homosexuality is morally allowed based on the “Who am I to judge quote” but take no notice of the context or his affirmations of marriage as being between one man and one woman. He’s portrayed as opening up the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried when he actually called on bishops and confessors to assess whether all the conditions for mortal sin were present instead of merely assuming they were. He’s accused of calling the death penalty intrinsically evil (contra past teaching) when he actually said recourse to it was inadmissible at this time—which built on St. John Paul II’s teaching and closed a loophole that essentially negated what he said.

These words, yanked out of context and constantly repeated, lead Catholics to begin to think “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” But that’s a refusal to determine the truth as we are required to. When different factions constantly argue that the Pope is a heretic when He teaches contrary to their ideology and these factions point to each other’s disputes as “proving” their points, it’s easy for faithful to think there is truth behind baseless accusations.

The accusations against the Pope that he causes confusion are ironic because

it’s the critics themselves who spread the confusion they blame him for...

The problem is, these critics do not have the authority to interpret what past Church teaching means in opposition to the magisterium. If the Pope decides to change a discipline or determine how doctrine is best applied in this era, he absolutely has that authority. The Catholic who argues that what a Pope says contradicts past teaching, he means that the Pope rejects his personal interpretation of past teaching. But the individual Catholic lacks the office to judge the teaching of the magisterium. 

An imperfect (because the Supreme Court lacks the authority and protection the Church has) analogy might being us disagreeing with the Supreme Court over a ruling. Regardless of what we might think the law should be, it is the Supreme Court, not us, whose decision has authority. Unlike the Supreme Court and its disastrous rulings, we believe God protects His Church and that the decrees of the magisterium are binding (Matthew 16:19, 18:18, Luke 10:16) and require our religious submission of intellect and will (Canon 752).

Sin and Authority

St. Augustine once said, “For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian. The former title speaks of a task undertaken, the latter of grace; the former betokens danger, the latter salvation.” The Pope and bishops in communion with him are sinners in need of salvation, just as we are. But the fact that they are fellow Christians and fellow sinners does not mean that we can disregard what they teach as Pope and bishops. Because what they teach is binding on us (provided a bishop does not go against the Pope), the fact that some of them might turn out to be notorious sinners does not negate their teaching office.

So even if Vigano’s accusations were true (a notion I absolutely reject!) this would not remove the Pope’s authority or give anyone authority to depose him. His instructions on Amoris Lætitia or changing the Catechism would remain binding. His call for continuing the synod on youth would not be negated.

What people need to remember is that regardless of what scandals come along, Our Lord has given us the Great Commission (Matthew 28:20) and we cannot set this aside on the grounds that some bishops have engaged in coverups or scandalous behavior. Did they do wrong? Yes, some did. But the Church remains Our Lord’s Church with His promises remaining kept.

This teaching authority doesn’t mean that the Pope or bishops will always make the best appointments—some may turn out to be scandalous. It doesn’t mean they’ll carry out the best sanctions against wrongdoers. It doesn’t mean that a successor won’t need to make revisions. It doesn’t mean that a Pope won’t do something embarrassing out of misunderstanding or bad advice...

But it does mean when the magisterium says “We’re going to do things this way,” they do have the authority to make that decision. If it turns out that they made a bad one (like appointing McCarrick), that doesn’t mean that none of their teachings or rulings have authority. 

So, if (this is the point the accusers have to PROVE) it turns out that Benedict XVI did make a request about McCarrick (it seems that Pope Francis’ accusers have backed away from claiming that he imposed canonical sanctions) then we can’t say that the Pope engaged in a coverup. It could mean he made a bad decision that could easily have been made in good faith. The accusations not only say he knowingly did wrong, but claim to know his intentions in doing so.

It’s still “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”

One tactic I’ve seen involves people saying that because the Vigano claims are “credible,” the Pope needs to open up the archives to refute them. No. That’s shifting the burden of proof. It assumes that the Pope is guilty until proven innocent. The Pope doesn’t have to open up the archives to prove his innocence. The burden of proof lies with the accusers. That means we don’t sign petitions demanding that the Pope clear this up. Church teaching on rash judgment means we don’t assume he is guilty without proof... which Vigano and company have not provided. Instead, he’s said to check the records. But, if there are no such records critics will (they already have!) accuse the Pope of stonewalling or destroying the records. The only way his critics will accept what the records reveal is if they prove guilt.

In other words, the accusations combined with the call for the Pope open the archives is effectively an admission of no evidence combined with a demand for the Pope to enable a “fishing expedition.”

Things Take Time 

If we want things done right, as opposed to a superficial fix, they take time to plan. No, it’s not just a matter of setting up a videoconference between the Pope and all the bishops. It’s going to involve each bishop involved collecting the data on their diocese—both under their leadership and under their predecessors. They’re going to have to look at what worked and what failed. They’ll have to bring forth suggestions that must be discussed and evaluated in order to create a just solution free of loopholes.

What we have is a revelation that some bishops chose to conceal wrongdoing instead of correct it. The Barrios case and the Pennsylvania report show that the old ways of doing things are ineffective. We’ll probably need some changes to canon law and put a system in place to report wrongdoing by bishops.

Personally, I think that the Pope was working on this since the news broke of McCarrick and the Pennsylvania grand jury report. I don’t believe that the Vigano letter put pressure on the Pope to act. I think it probably was a distraction, not an aid to this work.

We Must Recognize When We Lack Knowledge 

We all have a tendency to “fill in the blanks” when we hear partial information. We assume motives for actions and think that not seeing action means a willful refusal to act. We rely too much on rumors and news sources who consistently misreport news from the Church when they rely on soundbites.

Most don’t look at canon law, relevant documents, or transcripts from the Pope. They say “Something has to be done!” but don’t ask what the Church already does. Yes, the Pope has full authority of teaching and governing the Church. But we also have rules in place designed to protect from unjust treatment. The Pope can change these rules if he sees fit. But he will not do so arbitrarily.

Now I won’t tell everyone to pick up a huge library and start studying. While we need to understand the truth of things, people have different levels of education and needed time to study. What works for me might not be possible for others. But the first step is to stop filling in gaps in our knowledge with assumptions. If we don’t know something, we need to learn.

Conclusion: But I Can’t Trust Anymore!

Some people I know have stopped trusting the Pope. Whatever they thought the last linr would be, they think the Pope crossed it. The problem is, as I see it, the Pope hasn’t crossed any lines. There has been an effort to undermine him from the beginning. Those people involved have made so many claims that the Pope is heretical that it has virtually become a schism. They have led people to lose trust in God’s promises and to think there must be something to these anti-Francis Catholics’ claims by the sheer volume.

Does the Pope sin, make errors of judgment, and do things we wish he didn’t? Of course. Just like his predecessors and just like his successors will do! It is naive to think Pope Francis is the only Pope to do these things.

Do I think the Pope has taught error or willfully chosen to act against the Church? No. Do I think the devil is trying to deceive us into thinking that the Pope has done these things? Definitely.

We will always have bad priests and bishops in the Church. That’s been a problem since Judas. We will always have Popes who sinned. That’s been a problem since St. Peter. But that doesn’t change the Church or her authority. The existence of a McCarrick doesn’t discontinue the teaching authority of bishops. 

Yes, we need to reform the Church. But we need to realize that the true state of the Church is not as her enemies claim. We don’t place our trust in a mere human being or a mere human institution. We place our trust in Jesus Christ and the Church He established and promised to protect.

Once we do that, we can reasonably approach the sins of the current age instead of falling into panic.

____________________________

[†] Outside of the United States where some bishops sided with Vigano, the bishops have largely stood with Pope Francis. The exceptions I have heard of are one bishop from Scotland and Bishop Athanasius Schneider from Kazakhstan.

[§] As head of his archdiocese, he cracked down on a group who was abusing the Extraordinary Form, forbidding the use.

Fault Lines in Finding Fault

In geology, fault lines are where tectonic plates grind past each other. Sometimes they stick for awhile. When they finally slip, the result is an earthquake [§]. I find fault lines a good metaphor for the current strife in the Church. People pushing it in the direction they think best cause friction and conflict and, when a major scandal comes, this friction turns into a major jolt. While we can’t predict where slips—or scandals—will occur, the visible fault lines give us a sense on the general region the earthquake will be centered in. 

To (probably dubiously) apply this as a metaphor to the current strife, I think where we’re likely to cause friction can be found in where we have our previous leanings. The Church, despite the warnings of St. Paul or St. Clement I, is split into factions. Each one has its own ideas of the heroes or villains in the Church. Each one has ideas on what is right and wrong with the Church. So when a scandal arises, the general tendency is to say that the blame rests on the villains and things we see wrong with the Church. As a solution, we suggest that we turn it over to our heroes and do the things we think are right.

The problem is, we’re just as bad of sinners as those who have the responsibility to shepherd the Church and we lack the authority to do so. The result is, we often generate the friction by pushing in our preferred direction and when that friction becomes a theological earthquake, we blame the Church for the disaster, thinking that if only they had listened to us, the Church wouldn’t be in this mess. The problem is, we don’t have the whole picture. We can offer conjecture based on the facts we do have, but if we don’t have all the facts, our judgments will probably go wrong somewhere... we’ll be causing friction that leads to ruptures, possibly even schism.

I don’t say that we should just be passive and let the clergy do everything to avoid trouble. That’s clericalism and the Pope has warned against that. We of the laity have a role to play and, provided we do so reverently, we can make our needs and concerns known to those who shepherd (canon 212). But we have to know our limitations and not insist that what we know is all there is to know. It’s one thing to have a necessary conflict between good and evil. It’s another to coopt these conflicts as a proxy for our personal preferences. 

For many, this set of accusations against the Pope [†] is a proxy war for what people already thought about him. Those who dislike him tend to give credence to the claims of Archbishop Vigano. Those who like him tend to doubt the accusations. Hopefully, we don’t let our preconceived notions get in the way of seeking the truth. Unfortunately, many do. They either accuse the Pope or Vigano of “lying” because that sounds more serious than “mistaken recollection” or “saw the situation differently.” They say the Pope was guilty of a “coverup” because that supports their narrative of a bad Pope better than “the Pope was deceived by a charismatic individual who lied” or “Vigano was mistaken about the nature of what Benedict XVI intended to do with McCarrick.”

If we want to actually help the Church, we need to consider the possible reasons and eliminate the ones the evidence doesn’t support. For example, as more comes out on the backgrounds of the people involved in this scandal, I find it hard to believe that the Pope knowingly and willingly took part in a coverup. I don’t find it improbable that the Pope was mistaken about the true nature of some people and assumed he had the necessary facts to make changes [∞]. He strikes me as someone who strives to do what was right. So I believe that if he did reverse Benedict XVI’s decision (the point to be proven), he most likely believed he was doing what was right before God. A critic of the Pope would no doubt disagree with my assessment. But both of us would have to be open to seeking the truth and avoiding rash judgment—on the Pope, Vigano, Wuerl, Burke etc. etc. etc. If we don’t, we’re guilty of rash judgment against the one we hold in contempt.

We should remember Socrates and the lesson of knowing we do not know something. If we know we’re ignorant, we can learn. If we don’t know we are ignorant, we won’t even try to learn.

To do this, we need to catch ourselves when we think “There’s no good reason the Pope (or Vigano) would do this! He must be lying!” There can be a good reason that exonerates. Or there can be an earnest mistake that reduces or eliminates culpability. We need to be aware of the possibility and consider how the one we think wrong might have reached the conclusion sincerely.

If we can do that, we can help reduce the friction in the fault lines our factionalism causes and help reduce confusion and conflict in The Lord’s Church.

______________

[§] Yes, I’m grossly oversimplifying. This is a theology blog, not a geology blog.

[†] If you’re joining me for the first time, let me just be up front about it: I think he’s innocent.

[∞] These, being juridical acts, not acts of teaching would still be authoritative, but not protected by infallibility. He could reverse his predecessor’s decision and his successor could reverse his decision with no contradiction of doctrine.

Ten Reflections on Combox Comments on Abuse in the Church

Preliminary Notes: It is not the intention of this article to pass judgment on or lecture to the victims of abuse or their family members. Regardless of what the Church does to solve the crisis, that will be little comfort to the victims who will rightly hold that the Church never should have let itself get into this situation in the first place. It won’t discuss specific cases of abuse either. I imagine that actual victims won’t want some blogger to use their personal suffering to make a point.

Introduction 

The revelation that there are credible charges sexual against someone who managed to become a cardinal and the discovery that some bishops concealed cases of sexual abuse instead of reporting them to the proper authority was shocking. Those bishops brought harm to individual victims and their families. Moreover, despite doing so to protect the “good name of the Church” they actually failed to achieve that: if the bishops had promptly done what they were morally obligated to, the brief embarrassment over the publicity of turning predators over to the proper authorities would have been outweighed in the long run by establishing the credibility of the Church as protecting the victims. Now that stain will last for decades, if not centuries.

However, despite the anger and disgust over this mishandling of the sexual abuse crisis, we need to keep some facts in mind if we are to have a just response. None of these points should be seen as trying to “explain away” the evil done. Rather they are aimed at reflecting on things constantly repeated on social media and mentioning things that I think we should remember.

1) Sexual abuse is not exclusively a Catholic sin

The Catholic Church is singled out for the predator priests. But the percentage of priests who abuse is roughly the same as sexual abuse in non Catholic churches and non Christian institutions. Statistically speaking, the greatest source of abuse are the public schools. That’s understandable. Predators seek out positions of trust that give access to their victims. If that position is so respectable that people would immediately think the victims are lying, then they can do a lot of harm without being detected. Because nobody believes the victim, patterns that should have tipped off those in authority are ignored.

But we can’t say that if the Catholic Church didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have any abusers.

2) The fact that it’s not excusively Catholic doesn’t excuse us

A victim won’t feel comfort over the fact that it was just as likely to happen elsewhere. The fact is it shouldn’t have happened here at all. Yes the numbers are statistically small. But even one case in 2000 years would be shameful. Even if the the world ignores everybody but us, we still have an obligation to fix our part in it.

3) Statutes of Limitstions have mostly run out

Why aren’t McCarrick and the priests named in the Pennsylvania report facing criminal charges? Because there is a time limit on how long the state has to press charges. While the limitations vary by state, few crimes have no limits. Murder is one of them. Others vary widely depending on the state. So, crimes dating from the 1940s to the 1980s (probably later than that) can’t be prosecuted.

One thing that gets brought up is why don’t the bishops support extending the statute of limitations? The problem is, under criminal law, extending the statute of limitations violates the Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws. Apparently the state can extend the statute of limitations on civil lawsuits. The problem is, the proposed laws excludes state run institutions. Public schools, the institutions with the highest rates of abuse, have been consistently been protected.

4) Vatican City can’t arrest and prosecute for crimes committed outside Vatican City

If McCarrick had committed his crimes in the Vatican, he could very well have been prosecuted there (like the Vatileaks). But they can’t prosecute him for crimes he committed elsewhere. All they can do is hold a canonical trial imposing Church sanctions. The problem is, if a person refuses to follow the sanctions, the Church can’t do anything except excommunicate him. If such a person doesn’t care about that penalty, the Church can only leave such a one to God.

5) Just because “everybody knows” something that doesn’t always mean the authorities know 

A few weeks ago I was listening to a NPR news story about sexual abuse from a school team doctor. The former student said that when he talked it over with fellow teammates, the general reaction was that this was something that the freshmen went through. It was treated like a big joke...but nobody reported it to authorities.

That came to mind when I heard the “everybody knew about it” regarding Catholic scandals. People may widely talk about it among themselves, but it doesn’t mean that they included the police among those they spoke to. It doesn’t mean that bishops were given usable information that they could act on.

I’m not saying this explains everything. There are reports of bishops who did knowingly try to hide the problem. Those bishops will need to have their actions addressed.

6) Not all bishops were involved in a deliberate coverup 

We know some bishops preferred to conceal the truth and move predator priests around. But not all did. Some seem to have thought that such behavior involved a fixation with a specific person and moving the priest away from the victim would end the crime. Some followed the advice of psychologists and had the priest treated, believing the experts when they said the problem priest was “cured.” Others became bishop after the problem was in place and were surprised to learn when a laicized priest under their authority made the news. Finally, we had the bishops who took action when they discovered problems.

Each of those cases involve different levels of culpability and how they are treated should reflect that.

7) One of the major problems seems to have been communication 

There are numerous stories going around about complaints being made that went nowhere. Whether they went to the right place but lacked actionable information, whether they got diverted en route, or whether there was another reason, it seems like problems in a country’s Church tended to be kept in country. In the Barrios case in Chile, the Pope seemed to sincerely believe that there was no credible evidence against him. Once he found out otherwise, he acted swiftly.

I’m of the view that, whatever reforms are made, we definitely need one that gets complaints to where they need to be with no possibility of being misdirected, concealed, or lost.

8) In some countries, there seems to have been mistrust over involving the state

In the 19th and 20th centuries, relations between Church and state were strained. There was mistrust against what the state might try to do if involved. The result was some bishops preferred to keep the state out. I have read that Ireland’s bishops decided not to report to the government because canon law did not require them to...something that needs to be corrected.

Yes, some governments exceed their rightful authority. Australia’s attempt to abolish the seal of confession is one example. Yes, the Church does have a right and responsibility to protect herself from that. But the Church does need to set out rules on cooperation with the state on reporting crimes that apply no matter what level of hostility the state has.

9) Real Reform takes time 

We live in a society that demands instant results. But often the instant results we demand turn out to be unjust once we have more information. We now know that certain procedures didn’t work and need to be reformed. But making good reforms without exploits will take time: time to investigate how things went wrong, time to investigate how to make them right, time to turn them into canon law. If we don’t do that, we’ll have to deal with more problems down the line.

10) The Church still must carry out the Great Commission and deal with other problems

When the Pope issues statements pertaining to issues other than the abuse scandal, some Catholics get angry. “He should focus on this and nothing else until it’s solved!” But that doesn’t work. The Church exists as Our Lord’s ordinary means of bringing salvation to the world. That means she must address other evils that endanger people’s salvation and teach us on things that we wrongly think are “unimportant” based on our ideology.

It means we must not drop important issues. For example, I think that archbishop Chaput is a good bishop for the most part. I found his Render unto Caesar very helpful in dealing with Church and state. But I disagree with his call to set aside the upcoming synod on youth and replacing it with a synod on bishops. Yes, we do need a synod on Bishops. But such synods take time—usually 2 years—to set up (see #9 above). In the meantime, the Pope realizes the need for a synod on youth, to keep them in the Church and out of the “nones” category. That’s a real issue that won’t go away while we work on the scandal.

Yes, people inside and outside the Church may accuse us of “ignoring” the abuse issue or “having no credibility now.” But the Church has to deal with these issues regardless of what scandals arise.

Conclusion 

Nothing in what I write should be interpreted as supporting “business as usual” or not caring about the scandal. If someone believes I do, they have grossly missed my point.

But with all the anger out there, it seems that many on social media are not thinking things through. They assume the worst of the Church. Whoever does not say what the critics want them to say are “lying” or “stonewalling.” This article reflects my combox debates with angry people who seem to see only part of the issue.

Yes, let’s work for just reform according to the rights and responsibilities of canon 212.

But let us also be aware of things that the Church cannot ignore or neglect in carrying out reform.

They Ended in Schism

(Preliminary note: it’s not my intention to accuse anyone involved in this latest dispute of fomenting schism. Rather, I hope to remind everyone that certain attitudes can lead to that danger if not kept in check)

The thing that troubles me about the reaction to the scandals is the open contempt that some are showing to the clergy, treating them as an enemy that the Church needs to be liberated from. They rightly want reform but think that the cause of the corruption are not just some corrupt bishops and priests, but the bishops and priests. The problem is, this is not the first time that this happened. There were other movements in the history of the Church who began with a desire to reform the Church and ended in schism.

We’ve had groups like the Donatists, the Fratricelli, the Lollards, the Protestants, etc. They gradually started viewing the clergy as enemies and rejected them. When the Church told them they were wrong, they retorted that the Church was wrong. Eventually they wound up leaving the Church in the name of reform.

In this current crisis, I’m not accusing those concerned over scandals as fomenting schism. But I do wonder if we’re seeing fault lines that may turn into schism if left unchecked. The mistrust can lead to rejection of rightful authority. That rejection can turn into separation from the rightful authority. But, as Catholics, we cannot reject that rightful authority—even if some misuse it or personally sin grievously—because this authority is given to the Church by God.

This doesn’t mean “business as usual” when it comes to scandals. But it does mean recognizing the authority to teach and govern is not set aside for the bad behavior. John XII was a notoriously bad Pope. The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia describes him as “a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium.”  Yet, if he had ever taught as Pope [§], the obligation to obey would bind and the faithful would have to trust God would protect him from teaching error. People tried to depose him, but the attempt had no authority.

The situation we have in the Church today is nothing like the scandals of past centuries. I’m not arguing the fallacy of Relative Privation here. The fact that a past scandal was worse doesn’t mean we don’t suffer in a current one. But what it does mean is if the Church survived that, it will survive this and we are not excused from obedience.

What we have is a reaction of revulsion against the evils committed by one bishop and a small number of clergy combined with the revelation of some bishops knew but preferred to keep it hidden instead of stopping it. Yes, we do have evil in the Church. Yes, it does have to be rooted out. Wanting these things corrected is not wrong. But reckless accusations, assuming without proof the Pope must be guilty and demand for him to resign, assuming the clergy are an enemy of reform—these are wrong.

I would urge the faithful who are (quite legitimately) struggling with feelings of hurt, anger, and betrayal to remember this and not allow themselves to fall into these attitudes.

___________________

[§] He never did. God protecting His Church sometimes means that an evil Pope doesn’t get around to teaching at all.