It’s Iimi! A Question of Authority

Once more, Kismetta has questions for Iimi. But they’re not so much aimed at “debunking” Christianity as it is asking to learn about Christianity. Iimi needs to tread carefully because how she replies could permanently affect how Kismetta accepts the Church’s answer to… A Question of Authority.

Post Comic notes:

 

For those curious about the dialogue Sumeja is hearing on the other end, this is the Google Translation of Page 2, panel 1:

Voice (Zara): من هذا عزيزي؟  (min hadh eazizi?)

(Who is this, dear?)

 

Bahrudin: أنا أتحدث إلى سوميجا ، الزوجة الأولى ، عزيزتي  ('ana 'atahadath 'iilaa Sumija, alzawjat al'uwlaa , eazizati)

 (I am speaking to Sumeja, the first wife, dear)

 

Zara:  لماذا اتصلت متأخرا جدا؟  أليس بعد اثنتي عشرة ساعة هناك؟  (limadha atasalat muta'akhiran jidana? 'alays baed aithnatay eashrat saeatan hunaka?)

(Why is she calling so late? isn’t it twelve hours later there?)

 

I wrote in English and translated into Arabic. I’m sure a speaker of Arabic would find all sorts of problems with the translation.

Reflecting on the Current Rebellion

You shall not commit murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not corrupt boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not practice sorcery. You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant. And you shall not desire the goods of your neighbor. (Didache Chapter 2.2)

 

* * *

 

Here is another suggestion, which may not be without its value—if you find yourself thus apparently deserted by the light of faith, do not fluster and baffle your imagination by presenting to it all the most difficult doctrines of the Christian religion, those which unbelievers find it easiest to attack; do not be asking yourself, "Can I really believe marriage is indissoluble?  Can I really believe that it is possible to go to hell as the punishment for one mortal sin?"  Keep your attention fixed to the main point, which is a single point—Can I trust the Catholic Church as the final repository of revealed truth?  If you can, all the rest follows; if you cannot, it makes little difference what else you believe or disbelieve. (Msgr. Ronald Knox, In Soft Garments, pages 113-114).

 

Back in 2016, I wrote a piece about the attack against the authority of the leaders in the Church. At that time, the main issue was people using the misconstrued words of Pope Francis to push an agenda either to excuse rejecting a teaching or to undermine obedience to the Pope. Five years later, the main issue is… pretty much the same thing.

 

The issue in question is the Eucharist and receiving in a worthy manner. What drives this question is the fact that certain Catholic politicians are protecting and expanding abortion as a “right,” contrary to the obligations of Catholic teaching. Catholics conscious of grave sin must not present themselves for Communion (canon 916). Manifest public sinners must not be admitted to Communion (canon 915).

 

Among the bishops, the dispute is over reminding the faithful about what the Eucharist is and how they must be disposed to receive. In the past, American bishops have went along with a “let the individual bishop decide how to handle it in their diocese” approach. Unfortunately, since the treatment varies from place to place, some politicians appear to be facing no consequences for their actions.

 

Adding to the confusion is the misrepresentation of Pope Francis’ words on the Eucharist. It is true that the Pope said that the Eucharist is medicine for the sinners, not a reward for the saints… and there is nothing wrong with that statement, properly understood. All of us are sinners in need of salvation. Pope Francis’ Year of Mercy stressed Confession and he told priests not to make it difficult for those seeking to return.

 

The problem is some are twisting his words in a way that denies the need for that  repentance. The Catholic understanding is that God will continue to forgive us when we fall. But people forget that part of being reconciled with God is the intention of turn away from sin. Yes, we will fall again. But the The result is some Catholics do think the Eucharist is a reward… in the sense of a Participation Trophy. The common attitude is that one can go on sinning with no need for reconciliation or firm purpose of amendment to “go and sin no more” (cf. John 8:11).

 

This attitude is exposed when we see people treat abortion as a “political issue” and falsely accuse the bishops of political bias. It shows a serious problem when Catholics think of it as a “liberal political policy” and not the “deliberate killing of the unborn child” that was condemned since the First Century AD (see the quote from the Didache at the top of the article). Catholic Politicians and their defenders ignore this universal denunciation^†, treating it as a matter of preference.

 

In addition, we see extensive use of the tu quoque fallacy which distracts from the issue at hand by accusing the bishops of ignoring other issues. If one wants to to discuss these issues separately, that can be done. But the fact that Bishop X is accused of wrongdoing does not remove the guilt from the evil of abortion or the requirement of the proper disposition to receive the Eucharist. The bishops have to respond to that. Ezekiel 3:17-21 tells us:

 

Son of man, I have appointed you a sentinel for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me. If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die—and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade the wicked from their evil conduct in order to save their lives—then they shall die for their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. If, however, you warn the wicked and they still do not turn from their wickedness and evil conduct, they shall die for their sin, but you shall save your life. 

 

But if the just turn away from their right conduct and do evil when I place a stumbling block before them, then they shall die. Even if you warned them about their sin, they shall still die, and the just deeds that they performed will not be remembered on their behalf. I will, however, hold you responsible for their blood. If, on the other hand, you warn the just to avoid sin, and they do not sin, they will surely live because of the warning, and you in turn shall save your own life.

 

The bishops as shepherds are the sentinels. Regardless of whether we accept or reject their warning, they must speak out or perish. And we are called to obey the teachings of the Church because the Church teaches with the authority given by Christ. (Matthew 7:21-23, 16:19, 18:17-18, Luke 10:16, John 14:15, John 20:23). If we will not give our obedience to the Church, we are rejecting Christ.

 

This current rebellion is a symptom of a larger problem. We will follow the Church only as far as that obedience costs us nothing. But if she tells us specifically that we are supporting evil, we get angry. That can be Catholic Democrats on abortion, or Catholic Republicans on unjust immigration policies. It can also be Catholics belonging to political parties of other countries with their own situations of sin. In all of these cases, the Church teaching crosses national boundaries.

 

If we are angry when the Church does speak out, we should recall the words of Msgr. Knox, quoted above: “if you cannot [accept the teaching authority of the Church], it makes little difference what else you believe or disbelieve.” The parts we pick and choose will be of no avail at the final judgment when God asks us why we did not listen to the Church on the rest.

 

________________________

 

(†) It should be noted that people routinely practiced abortion and infanticide when the Church condemned this, so it is not a cultural belief.

Mirror Error on the Wall…

Iimi spends time with her youth group. The topic of discussion is Problems in the Church and How the Church Should Face Them. Unfortunately, Sean and Daryl want to argue in favor of their own factions. Iimi thinks that is the problem.

Let Us Abolish the Term

There is a term that some Catholics use, but I utterly loathe. That term is “Pope Francis Catholic.” Before you react in horror—or smugness—I am not repudiating Pope Francis or his teachings in any way. I still do stand with him as the successor of Peter and accept what he teaches as authentic and binding.

 

The problem is, I find many Catholics using the term use it in the sense of the terrible phrase “Spirit of Vatican II.” That sense ignores what was taught and instead claims to understand what is “really” meant… even though the actual words contradict the so-called “spirit” in meaning and intention. 

 

The Catholics who think that Vatican II or Pope Francis allows us to reject or explain away the teachings they do not like are not being faithful to the Council or the Pope. They are merely heterodox at best. Catholics who think that the Church was in the wrong before Vatican II or Pope Francis are not being faithful Catholics. They are undermining the timeless teachings of the Church that were reaffirmed by both.

 

Vatican II was not about reversing Church teaching. It was about making it understandable for the current times. Pope Francis did not introduce innovations contradicting his predecessors. He emphasized the the importance of removing the obstacles that intimidated those not in right relationship with God.

 

The Catholic who thinks that Vatican II or Pope Francis have taught that certain sins are no longer grave or can be approved of have missed the point. Abortion, contraception, homosexual acts… these remain grave sins and intrinsic evils. We may not do them. We may not condone them in others.

 

Nor can we blame past Popes for any legalism that has sprung up among certain Catholic factions. It was necessary for St. John Paul II to emphasize the fact that intrinsic evils can never be justified because he was challenging widespread errors of moral relativism. Pope Francis is challenging some Catholics who misunderstood St. John Paul II and overlooked his calls for mercy.

 

The truth of the Church remains true from age to age. But people do confuse that truth with the legal systems of past eras. That can mean they reject the truth because they think the language of the phrasing is too harsh. Or it can mean they think that those who sin should be treated in the same way that these past documents called for and a change in discipline is falsely equated with a rejection of truth.

 

So, when I see Catholics invoke Pope Francis or Vatican II to justify dissent from the teachings they dislike, I know these Catholics are just as badly informed about Pope and Council as those Catholics who believe they taught error. Whether they are knowingly dishonest or simply misled, I leave that judgment to God. But I cannot accept their beliefs as authentically Catholic.

 

As Catholics, we believe that the Church—under the headship of the Pope and bishops in communion with him—teaches with the authority given by Christ in a binding manner that we must obey. We trust that the authority comes with the protection from God so we will not be bound to error. We need to recognize that the ordinary magisterium is binding and is not prone to error. The difference between the ex cathedra teaching and the ordinary magisterium is the ordinary magisterium can be further developed. 

 

For example, the Church teaching on contraception is binding. But it is possible that science will develop a new method of controlling the number of births a woman has and the Church may need to further develop the teaching on contraception to explain why that method is wrong or permissible^†. While the teachings remain in the ordinary magisterium, it is not because the teaching can be ignored. As Pope Pius XII taught:

 

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

 

The Catholic who accepts Laudato Si and rejects Humanae Vitae is no more a faithful Catholic than one who rejects Laudato Siand accepts Humanae Vitae. Both documents are taught with the binding authority of the Church. Regardless of whether one thinks sins against the environment are worse than sins of contraception or vice versa, the Catholic who refuses to obey and makes excuses for their disobedience is not behaving like a faithful Catholic.

 

So, let us stop using terms that justify disobedience. Yes, fidelity to God and His Church must be more than a legalistic lip service. But we cannot call it fidelity if we refuse to obey the Church on what we must or must not do. (cf. Matthew 7:21-23, 18:17, Luke 10:16, John 14:15).

 

Remember: The person who calls themselves a “Spirit of Vatican II Catholic” or a “Pope Francis Catholic” and uses that label to disobey the teaching of the Church only demonstrates that they do not understand Vatican II or Pope Francis.

 

_______________________________

 

[†] For example: Prior to 1960, most contraception involved some variant of the barrier method. Church teaching in condemning it did focus on why barrier methods were morally unacceptable. (The IUD was an abortion inducing object that was condemned on those grounds). Since the Pill was not a barrier method, people hoped that the Church might declare it licit. Instead, St. Paul VI declared it was also wrong. The Church teaching expanded to address that new method and why it was wrong. In doing so, the Church was prepared to deal with chemical implants when they were developed.

Are We Making a Shipwreck of Our Faith?

I entrust this charge to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophetic words once spoken about you. Through them may you fight a good fight by having faith and a good conscience. Some, by rejecting conscience, have made a shipwreck of their faith (1 Timothy 1:18-19a)

 

I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect. (Romans 12:1–2).

 

With the Presidential Election happening in two days, the most alarming thing is not that Candidate X (X being the candidate you dislike) might win. It’s that American Catholics are so entrenched in party politics that they think that only the other party is in the wrong vis a vis Catholic teaching and if the Bishops should dare speak out on an issue where their own party is in the wrong, it is seen as “proof” that they favor the other party. It is not unusual to see partisan Catholics of both factions in social media simultaneously accuse the bishops of being pro-Democrat and pro-Republican^†, while denouncing fellow Catholics for doing exactly what they do themselves: Excuse the evil in their own party as being less important than the evil in the other party.

 

You have probably heard the counter-slogans already. Those who intend to vote for Biden will stress racism and immigration. Those intending to vote for Trump will stress the issue of abortion. Both will act as if only the other side’s voting for a party supporting evil is intolerable while their own is a justifiable sacrifice. Some even go so far as to make excuses for their party and their personal failure to oppose the evils within. Both sides are confident that they stand on the side of Christ and equally confident that those they disagree with are deliberately, and with full knowledge, choosing evil. 

 

I say this makes a shipwreck of faith because all of us need to constantly ask ourselves where we have done wrong and work to turn back to God. We need to bring the world to Christ, not to our political party. If we call ourselves Catholic Christians but make excuses instead of work to change the evils within our own party, we are conforming to the world instead of transforming it… which is a perversion of our calling.

 

Yes, we can find both Catholic Democrats and Republicans alike who are morally concerned about our country. Yes, both belong to one party because they are appalled by the platform of the other. But it is never enough to stop at condemning the other side for doing something you personally are appalled by. If we are not also appalled by the evils within our own party, we are no better than those we condemn. 

 

Yes, some evils are worse than others. But that does not mean that the others are morally acceptable. Gaudium et Spes (#27) gives us a litany of evils that indicts both Democrats and Republicans for their silence on them:

 

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

 

I do understand the temptation to fear the consequences of calling our own party^‡ out. I used to think that way. We fear that calling out our own party means weakening our party or even being forced to vote for the other party. But nowadays I think it we should think of it in a “You break it, you bought it” way. If you identify with a political party, then—win or lose—you “bought” the responsibility to work to change that party when it goes against Catholic teaching. If you vote for a candidate who is at odds with the Catholic teaching and he gets elected, you “bought” the responsibility to oppose him on those issues. You do not get to shirk responsibility for living out and making known Church teaching just because you voted a certain way. You do not get to be silent on, explain away, or downplay those evils that are inconvenient to your own party just because you think other evils are worse. That is called being corrupt, and the cost is greater than the gain.

 

Corruption is everywhere: for two pence many people sell their soul, sell their happiness, sell their life, sell everything. (Pope Francis, “Holy Mass Celebrated for the Gendarmerie Corps of Vatican City State. Saturday, 3 October 2015)

 

For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world.… But for Wales! (Bolt, Robert. A Man For All Seasons (Modern Classics). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition).

 

When the Church teaches against an evil that we have grown accustomed to, one that strikes at the human institutions we have put our trust in, we need to change how we think. We must stop thinking of that teaching as a “threat” or “capitulation” to the other side. If we feel fearful or resentful of the Pope or a bishop speaking out, we should ask ourselves why we are taking sides againstthose given the authority to interpret God’s teaching and guide us and bind us on what we must do or avoid if we hope to be saved.

 

If we are tempted to say that we are not the ones taking sides, but they are, we should ask ourselves why we are so sure of our own understanding of the Church teaching while the Pope and bishops consistently go “wrong.” It is easy for corrupt culture to blind us to the evil of their practices after all. It’s easy to be so accustomed to our vicious customs that we grow blind to the fact that something is evil, and we think the attempts to overturn it are themselves evil.

 

We should remember that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church with the intention to teach with His authority and with His protection. If we are so certain that we, not they, are in the right, that is a sure sign we are making a shipwreck of our faith.

 

_______________

 

(†) As always, I put candidates, ideologies, and parties in alphabetical order to avoid accusations of bias.

 

(‡) I will not say how I voted. Yes, I think one party is worse than the other. But that does not make the other party “good.” All I will say is I looked at both parties and decided which I thought would do the most harm to living a Catholic life. From there I voted with an intention to block it. But, no matter who wins, I will oppose the evil they stand for. If the reader immediately assumes that I ignored the evils on “the other side,” it’s kind of proving the point of my article.

The Perennial Problem

Did you hear the one about the corrupt bishop, accused of coercively soliciting donations, hiring cronies, and even sexual assault? Where he was removed from his diocese but permitted to remain a bishop if he provided restitution to those he robbed by his actions? (He did so through a loan). Where his superior—who nominated him based on his holiness as a youth—was accused of either being blind or complicit? Where he outright lied to the Pope when the case was heard?

You can stop your speculating over which current bishop I’m talking about, because you’re about 1600 years off. The bishop’s name was Antoninus, his superior was St. Augustine, and the Pope was St. Boniface I. We learn about this sordid affair in St. Augustine’s Letter 20*, written about AD 422.§ Even by today’s standards, the situation is startling, and reminds us that even the saints could be just as tone deaf and get things just as wrong as those shepherds the Church today.

I don’t bring this up to say, “It happened back then too… it can’t be helped.” Of course, it should always be acted on in every age. Rather, I bring this up to remind despairing Catholics that scandals in the Church are not something new, and even the greatest saints mishandled affairs out of attempted compassion to a sinner claiming to repent, of being unsure if the accusations were justified, or ignorance of all the facts.

The fact is, our Popes and bishops have always been human beings in need of salvation, with a finite knowledge of the events around them. Yes, corruption does exist in the Church and needs to be rooted out. Yes, sometimes the response to corruption is misguided. Yes, Canon 212 does give us the right to respectfully make our needs known when we think the response is unjust.  But this does not give us the excuse to disobey them when they act as successors to the Apostles. We must not rashly assume evil intention or bad will when a decision turns out to be problematic… as it sometimes will.

We should be praying for the Pope and clergy in communion with him, that they guide the Church wisely and well. We should also be careful to see if we have the proper interpretation of the facts before speaking out on an issue, and we should attempt to see if we can understand why one could have made a decision that went wrong.

This is something true regardless of the times we live in.

 

_______________________

(§) The reason for the asterisk: This letter is part of a 29-letter collection discovered after his previous collection of letters was codified. Originally thought to be forgeries, they are now believed to be authentic after analysis. Catholic University of America labels them as 1*-29* with asterisks to avoid having to renumber the 17th century numbering of the 264 letters—which would disrupt previous citations. So, citations of the Saint’s Letter 20 and Letter 20* would refer to two different things.

What Happens When Catholic Voters Are Dishonest?

CAN. 751† Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

CAN. 752† Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

CAN. 753† Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

CAN. 754† All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Over the past two weeks, the USCCB have issued statements on different moral teachings… abortion, the death penalty, the treatment of migrants, religious freedom and the like. Right on the heels of the Democratic and Republic Conventions, these statements seem aimed at reminding American Catholics about what the Church requires of them.

And, right on schedule, American Catholics come out of the woodwork to denounce those statements, claiming they are ignoring (often they accuse of the Bishops of deliberately ignoring) other issues that these critics think is more important. When the bishops condemn abortion, those Catholics planning to vote for a pro-abortion candidate accuse them of ignoring the other teachings. When they condemn the death penalty, those Catholics who plan to vote for a candidate who supports it accuse the bishops of ignoring abortion… which they just spoke about the day previously.

When this happens, it is hard to avoid wondering if a portion of these Catholic voters are either culpably ignorant or outright dishonest§. By saying this, I don’t mean dishonest in the sense of “not believing in God.” Rather I mean dishonest in the sense of not honestly seeking to examine one’s conscience and see if their behavior is against what Catholics are called to be.

I have seen some Catholics proclaim to be faithful while refusing to give assent to the Pope (that’s dissent at best, if not de facto schism). I’ve seen others proclaim to be “Pope Francis Catholics†” while being openly contemptuous of the bishops who repeat his teachings. More often than not, you can tell which of them plan to vote Democrat and which plan to vote Republican while claiming to be the only Catholics to follow the Church correctly. Catholics of these factional views try to claim their political views are doctrine, while doctrine their party is afoul of is “opinion” or “prudential judgement.‡”

We need to remember that Jesus Christ has established the Catholic Church under the visible head of St. Peter and his successors—up to and including the current Pope—and the bishops in communion with him. If an individual bishop or a group of bishops act against that communion, they do not act with any authority. But when a bishop teaches, we are bound to give “to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops” (Canon 753).

This is where we run into the dishonesty test. If a Catholic who, upon being instructed by the Pope or his bishop on a certain matter, immediately searches for reasons not to obey… such a Catholic is not being honest. He is guilty of what Our Lord condemned in the attitude of the Pharisees, looking for legalistic excuses not to follow God’s teachings and there are consequences for that attitude (cf. Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16).

Whether the Pope or bishop speaks out on an intrinsic evil like abortion, or a morally neutral act carried out with evil intention or consequence, we don’t get to decide whether to obey or not. Either we obey or we are not faithful Catholics… no matter how hard we politically fight those we see as enemies of the Church.

It should be noted that such prohibitions are not limited to matters of dogma. The Church can also bind in matters of discipline and governance. For example, there was never anything evil about eating meat. But the Church decreed for centuries that we must not eat meat on Fridays as an act of penance. Those Catholics who did eat meat on Fridays were not guilty of sin simply because they ate meat, but because they refused to accept the penitential discipline laid down. These acts of governance can be changed as needed. But we don’t get to pass judgment on those acts of governance and decide whether or not we will follow them.

This is where every Catholic needs to look at their behavior. If the response to the authoritative act of Pope or bishops is to look for ways to evade that obligation, we are being dishonest. If we point out the sins of others who we politically oppose while doing the same thing, we are being dishonest.

And if we are dishonest, we are not giving the obligatory assent. Once we start down that road, we will end up facing judgment for it. If we are unrepentant in our disobedience, we do risk hell. That is the end result of being dishonest with ourselves. And if (God forbid!) we face that judgment for not keeping God’s commands, the things we did do will be of no avail. As Our Lord, Jesus Christ said:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” (Matthew 7:21–23).

…and we will have no honest excuse if we do not give the obedience God commands us to give to His Church.

___________

(§) This is of course something for God to judge and the individual Catholic’s confessor to assess. I will not “name names” or accuse individuals of being guilty. All I hope to do is get people to think about it.

(†) I hate this term. Not because of any hostility to the Pope, but because virtually all of the Catholics I have encountered who use it hijack it to cover their political views which are actually in opposition to what the Pope has said.

(‡) I’ve discussed that HERE.

The Stupid Season: Reflections on Catholics and the 2020 Elections

[As a preliminary note, while I don’t doubt that people looking at my personal and blog Facebook pages could guess which party I think is the least destructive to America—I’m probably not as subtle as I think I am—this article is intended to be non-partisan in discussing real dangers Catholics need to avoid regardless of party affiliation].

An informed Catholic should recognize that the teachings of the Church are binding on the faithful, and that the bishops—as successors to the apostles—should be listened to barring extraordinary circumstances like acting in opposition to the Pope. Even if we think there might be extraordinary circumstances, we owe it to ourselves to learn before acting lest we turn out to be the rebels.

Keeping that in mind, an informed Catholic should look at their political loyalties as secondary. Whatever we prefer politically must be measured against what the Church teaches. We cannot call a political platform good where it diverges from Church teaching. Nor can we argue that our interpretation of Church teaching takes precedence over those tasked with shepherding the Church.

This leads to what I have been calling the “Silly Season” for years. That’s because Catholics begin acting more irrationally about arguing that their politics are compatible with their faith, despite the witness of the Pope and the bishops against that view. Whenever they say something is morally wrong in nature or circumstance, Catholics from the party in question try to argue that the actual issue is different from the thing condemned. It’s a nonsensical attitude to take because the ones they are debating do have the authority to teach on the subject and we would be wise to adjust our political views to our faith, not vice versa.

But, as we get deeper into the 2020 elections, it seems to me that “silly” isn’t a strong enough word. We’ve reached what I have to call the “stupid season.” That’s where Catholics on both sides of our dualistic divide are not only trying to deflect, they’re arguing that the Church is outright wrong on issues where the Pope and bishops rebuke their political positions for supporting things incompatible with the Christian life, or praise a policy where the preferred party is in opposition. We’re seeing Catholics now proclaim that they will vote for candidate X despite his support for evil because the stakes are “too high.”

This is stupid because such people are effectively saying they are okay with gaining the world but losing their souls (cf. Mark 8:36). They are saying that the issues their party† is wrong on are “not important” compared to the issues they support. Then they say they won’t be “single issue voters” as if issues A+B+C (which they either don’t care about or actively support) are not as wrong as issues D+E+F (which they already oppose). When the bishops speak out on A+B+C, they’re outraged at the “partisanship” and say that the bishops should “stay out of politics.” When the bishops speak out on D+E+F, they take it as “proof” that their opponents are on the side of demons and against the Church.

But what they’re ignoring or overlooking is that their opponents are looking at them in exactly the same way: The Church speaking out against A+B+C “proves” the party that favors them is demonic while D+E+F aren’t important. 

These positions are contrary, which means both can’t be right, but both can be wrong. And wrong they are. When the Church speaks out against issues A through F, we don’t get to be the ones who choose which to obey or disobey. That’s cafeteria Catholicism. The Catholic who turns his back on the issue of abortion and the Catholic who turns his back on the treatment of migrants will both have to answer to God for refusing to hear the Church.

That being said, the sincere Catholic might wonder what to do when both parties are wrong on major issues but one will be elected. The minor parties and the voting down ballot are more of an escape pod of conscience‡ than a practical solution.

Obviously, we all have our own views on which party is worse. That is not a sin in itself. But what we do with that vote and our attitudes towards the issues a preferred party is wrong on might be. Let’s put it this way: I see some Catholics argue that Biden is the only Catholic choice. I see some Catholics argue that Trump is the only Catholic choice. But neither group of Catholics eversays what they’ll do about the very real evils—condemned by the Church—that these candidates promise to implement if they get elected. Siding with a party as a Catholic includes the responsibility to reform and rebuke their evils.

If any Catholic thinks that we have to support Party A because the evils of Party B are worse, then their task is not over if Party A gets elected. We have to fight to cleanse our preferred party of that evil. That means working to remove evil party planks and working to raise candidates who do not champion evil causes. They have to stand up and condemn when their candidate supports evil.

Do not automatically look at the failures of Catholics in the other party in that regard. God will look into their hearts and judge their culpability. But He will also judge yours. We can’t control what others do or fail to do. But we do control our own acts and omissions. And that’s exactly what we have to consider. 

Archbishop Chaput, speaking on the question on voting for a pro-abortion candidate, gives good counsel on voting for any candidate who holds a position at odds with the Catholic faith:

And what would such a “proportionate” reason look like? It would be a reason we could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our actions—as we someday will.

—Chaput, Charles J. Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life (p. 230). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

If you already oppose abortion, insert another issue where the Church spoke against a position your party holds, like the treatment of migrants. The point is, if you vote for a party that is wrong on an issue, you can’t treat that issue as unimportant and forgettable after the election.

Unfortunately, an alarming number of American Catholics are forgetting this important position and wind up putting loyalties to party over submission to the Church that Christ established. Since that can quite possibly involve grave sin, such party loyalties are stupidly given.

Hence, that’s why I call it “stupid season.”

 

___________

(†) Non-American readers should remember that the United States has a dualistic political system. Minor parties very seldom get elected to lower offices and never (yet) to the Presidency.

(‡) As a disclosure, I voted for a minor party for President in 2016—for the first time in my life—because I thought both candidates were unfit to serve. I also downvoted on the 2020 primary ballot for the same reason. Unlike most minor party voters, I tend to believe we will continue to have a two-party system until we reach a state where neither major party addresses a burning issue that people want addressed. It is true the Republicans were a minor party that did supplant the Whigs because of the growing opposition to slavery in the 19th century, but I don’t see an equivalent issue firing up the electorate today.

The “Guides” We Must Not Follow: Putting Personal Opinion Above Church Teaching

Today, on social media, I saw somebody had posted a link from an anti-Francis Catholic arguing that the SSPX was formed canonically. Apparently, the individual was trying to argue that it had been unlawfully suppressed by the bishop in question†. I don’t think this link is particularly dangerous. It’s posted from someone I didn’t take too seriously even before the pontificate of Pope Francis. But things like this serve as a reminder that some people actually believe that their personal interpretations of Church teaching outrank the decrees of Popes and bishops.

Adding to the tragedy, these Catholics seem to take pleasure in trying to argue that the Catholic Church is becoming “Protestant‡under Pope Francis. They use the term “Protestant” as an epithet, but seem unaware that the rejection of the teachings of Pope and bishops in favor of their own interpretation is the behavior of men like Luther and Calvin.

Luther and Calvin also insisted on their interpretations of Scripture, Church Fathers, and Councils to justify their own views, attacking everything that stood firmly against them as “unbiblical.” It’s a No True Scotsman fallacy where everything cited against their position is seen as “error.”

Once we recognize this, we have to choose: We either recognize that when the Pope intends to teach—even in the ordinary magisterium—we’re bound to obey, or we’re no different from any other dissenter, regardless of our motive. So, if we have a difficulty, we are bound to look at this and ask How did I go wrong, not declare The Church went wrong! But that’s precisely what the critics don’t do.

I think the modern Catholic critics who love to use the term “Protestant” as an epithet have drawn the wrong conclusions from Church History at that time. The main problem was not so much the novelties of those teachings by the founders of Protestantism (though they were wrong) as it was refusing to look to the Church for confirmation and correction.

“But wait,” the anti-Francis Catholic might say. “These aren’t my ideas. They’re the magisterial writings of the past!” To which I would respond, “No. They’re your interpretations of those past writings. The Pope and bishops determine whether or not your interpretation is accurate.*” Clergy and members of the laity can offer their insights of course. But in the end, the Pope is the one who determines if an interpretation is authentic.

The fact of the matter is, the concept of Protection from Error is not to be understood in a Pelagian concept where it depends on the character of the man who is Pope. It is the trust in God to protect His Church. God protects the Church from wicked men or clueless men who might occupy the See of Peter. If The man in the Papacy is morally or intellectually bad (I deny Pope Francis is either), this protection from error might be a negative act—preventing such a man from teaching at all. 

The difference between Ordinary and Extraordinary (aka ex cathedra) magisterium is not a measure of quality. Rather it defines the nature of the teaching: The former can be further developed depending on the needs and circumstances, while the latter is something that draws a line where the Church cannot cross. For example, the Immaculate Conception is an ex cathedra teaching that draws a line: Any attempt to argue that Mary was an ordinary sinful woman cannot ever hope to call their interpretation Catholic. However, in the ordinary magisterium, while wrong is wrong, it may be changed as we discover different things. For example, while contraception is always morally wrong, the Church may have to reach a decision on whether or not a new technique that regulates births is morally acceptable or not#.

That’s the difference between Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. Both must be obeyed, but the former can be further refined as time goes on. The change of discipline falls under the Ordinary Magisterium. Whether we use the vernacular or not; whether we ordain married men or not; whether we give the chalice to the laity or not, these are all disciplines that the Church can change if they think the change is necessary. If they should do so, we are obliged to give religious submission of intellect and will to the decision, not to obey or not as we choose.

The modern dissenters should consider this well: If they think that they are faithful Catholics, then let them remember that obedience to the teachings made by the Pope and bishops of this time are just as required as to past teachings. If one thinks there is a “break” in teaching where the Pope “errs,” the presumption of error is to be placed on the critic’s interpretation, not on the official teaching of a Pope.

Once we realize this, we can realize that there is no “confusion” caused by the Pope. But there is a lot of confusion caused by those who claim to know the Catholic faith better than the Pope.

____________

(†) It is troubling that, for several anti-Francis Catholics, all roads seem to eventually lead to Ecône, even if that particular individual defended past Popes from the SSPX.

(‡) Actual Protestants I have encountered find the claim that Pope Francis, the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and Vatican II are “Protestant” to be risible.

(*) All the heresies and schisms in the history of the Church could have been avoided if the ones who fell into these things had listened to the Church instead of think that the Church had gone wrong.

(#) The 1960s discussion of the Birth Control Pill was never—in the eyes of the Church—about whether contraception could be made “good.” The question was whether the Pill (which did not use previous barrier methods) was contraception or not. Once it became clear that the pill was contraceptive, the Church had to reject its use.

New Actors Playing an Old Part: The “Theology” Of Dissent

The Anti-Francis Catholic frequently identifies himself with orthodoxy within the Catholic Church. But he (or she) must reconcile that claim with the fact that they are choosing to reject the teaching of the current Pope as heretical, an opinion, or a prudential judgment. When faced with the challenge that the Pope must be obeyed when he teaches (Canon 752), the common attack is that this insistence to obedience is ultramontanism, and is an aberration compared to what was believed by the Church during the pontificate of his predecessors.

The problem is, they can’t reconcile their claims with the actual words of past Popes. In fact, during past pontificates, these anti-Francis Catholics cited the statements defending the authority of the Popes to bind and loose (cf. Matthew 16:19). No previous Pope would have considered his teachings optional. For example, St. John Paul II would write: 

This supreme authority of the papal Magisterium, to which the term apostolic has been traditionally reserved, even in its ordinary exercise derives from the institutional fact that the Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Peter in the mission of teaching, strengthening his brothers, and guaranteeing that the Church’s preaching conforms to the “deposit of faith” of the apostles and of Christ’s teaching. However, it also stems from the conviction, developed in Christian tradition, that the Bishop of Rome is also the heir to Peter in the charism of special assistance that Jesus promised him when he said: “I have prayed for you” (Lk 22:32). This signifies the Holy Spirit’s continual help in the whole exercise of the teaching mission, meant to explain revealed truth and its consequences in human life.

For this reason, the Second Vatican Council states that all the Pope’s teaching should be listened to and accepted, even when it is not given ex cathedra but is proposed in the ordinary exercise of his Magisterium with the manifest intention of declaring, recalling and confirming the doctrine of faith. It is a consequence of the institutional fact and spiritual inheritance that completes the dimensions of the succession to Peter. (Audience, March 17, 1993)

The Saint did not just invent this belief. He bases it on the consistent teaching about how the Church exercises her teaching authority. In fact, throughout history, you have to go to those who broke with the Church to find the same arguments that are made now. Whenever a Pope would rule against a person, the obstinate would argue that he could err or that his teaching was an “opinion.”

Understanding this, we begin to see the real issue with the attacks on Pope Francis. Whether the critics act out of defiance or out of ignorance, they do not like that his teachings differ from their interpretations, and think his words should match their views. This was a problem throughout history. It might be from a confusion of moral and doctrinal error. Many critics seem to think that the existence of morally bad Popes in history means that this Pope can teach doctrinal error. But that’s a non sequitur as the Pope can be protected from teaching error† even if one acts wrongly in his personal behavior. So, the appeals to John XII and others are irrelevant in insisting on the possibility of a Pope teaching error.

Once we recognize this error among Papal critics, the justification for disobedience vanishes. St. Paul withstood St. Peter to his face (Galatians 2:14). But this was not because of any teaching error, but because withdrawing from the Gentiles to avoid conflict with Jewish Christians to avoid a conflict led some to think that Jewish practices were required—against St. Peter’s intent (Acts 15:7-11).

We need to realize that the critics who are claiming to defy the Pope out of a love of the Church are—at best—misled about the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching of the Pope is the teaching of the Church. Laudato Si and Amoris Lætitia are Church teachings and not opinions or “prudential judgments.”

It seems that one problem is that the critics are declaring themselves judge and jury. They claim to have the right interpretation of the Church teaching but refuse to hear the ones who are entrusted with that authority to clarify and deny the teachings. As long as they have that attitude, they will never consider correction of errors in their understanding. That’s dangerous because, while being innocently mistaken about what the Church teaches might be easily corrected, being obstinate against what the Church teaches is the definition of heresy (canon 751).

The tragedy of the modern critics is that they have invented a “theology” of dissent that claims that a Pope can be a formal heretic and teach error, and can be deposed by the Church—none of which is actually taught by the Church. Canon 1404 says, The First See is judged by no one and, during the history of the Church, only those in dissent tried to claim that they could.

There have been in the past and may be in the future morally bad Popes. I deny Pope Francis is one of those. But that fact has never meant that the past Popes have ever taught error. Yes, some disciplines may have been changed for the needs of the time, and some development of understanding have led to the prohibition of things once tolerated. But it was not a case of the Church once taught evil was all right but now it’s wrong ‡.

In this time when people are willing to justify disobedience in the name of the Church, we should remember that the new champions of the argument are just using the same old errors. As such, they cannot be considered “orthodox” when they argue that dissent is justified. It’s the same old error, but with new actors playing the part.

___ 

(†) For example, a thoroughly wicked Pope might be prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching at all to prevent an erroneous teaching.

(‡) Sometimes Churchmen would support evils like torture or slavery. These are what we would call vicious customs. They were not invented by the Church. Rather, the local customs (often pre-Christian) were accepted as the norm. Slavery had been on the decline during the middle ages to the point that, when Europeans began taking slaves in the Canary Isles, Pope Eugene responded (1435) with an angry denunciation in Sicum Dudet. The worst one could say is that the some of those leading the Church stayed silent when it should have spoken. But that’s a moral failing on the part of the individual.

False Conception and Fatal Consequences

I think that one of the beginnings of error—potentially leading to heresy and/or schism—is forgetting we can err. By this, I mean that when we think that things should operate in a certain way but do not consider the possibility that we have misunderstood either the teaching we use as a yardstick or the statement that we measure against it, we have a false conception.

This can happen in different ways. Aristotle—in the quote to the left— uses the example of geometry. It can happen by drawing false analogies from a misunderstanding of history. It can happen by classifying philosophical or theological topics as scientific and claiming that science “refutes” the existence of God. Or by using political views to interpret science.

What is dangerous is when our false conception is used to refuse the authority of one who does know the truth. The greater the damage caused by the false conception, the more dangerous it is. Thinking that a soda has the same effect on the body as water—despite warnings to the contrary—is (usually) a minor harm. Rejecting warnings that H₂SO₄ does not have the same properties as H₂O is much more serious, and very likely fatal. Once we get into the realm of what happens to our immortal soul, the consequences for rejecting one who knows can reach the level of eternal salvation and eternal damnation… consequences that are much more serious than a matter of life and death.

Every heresy and schism starts with a false conception. The nature of God, the nature of Christ, the nature of Scripture and Tradition, the nature of Faith and Works, the nature of male and female, etc. When a person goes wrong on these things, they will wind up saying what is false. But if they speak falsely on a matter of salvation—regardless of whether or not they think it’s true—they can do something that is deadly (mortal) to their soul or the souls of others. 

Men like Arius and Nestorius, Luther and Calvin, the modern anti-Francis Catholics and those who opposed his predecessors have reached a false conception on some essential truth. But it isn’t just an individual false conception. These individuals also rejected those who do teach the truth when the teachers said their ideas were false. Worse, they misrepresented the words and actions of the teachers to undermine people’s trust in them, leading the people astray.

Catholics should know that the teacher I am referring to is the Catholic Church, giving binding teaching with Christ’s authority and protection (Matthew 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:18-20). Our Lord made obedience to this Church necessary (Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16, John 20:23, 1 Timothy 3:15), and to reject her is to reject Him. Since it is the magisterium—the Pope and the bishops who teach in communion with him—that binds and looses, refusal to obey is schism and the obstinate rejection of what the Church teaches is heresy.

The person who knows that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, but refuses to listen, or remain within the Church is doing something much more foolish than the person who ignores the warning about H₂SO₄. He is not merely risking his life. He is risking his immortal soul. It is true that a person who has invincible ignorance—not knowing and having no way of knowing something—has reduced culpability for the wrong done. But as Gaudium et Spes #16 puts it:

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

We must be careful to remember that the Catholic who doesn’t look to the Church for the proper understanding of the teaching they use as a yardstick is not taking the proper care for truth and goodness. If they persist in rejecting the Church, they might grow blind to their errors and not realize it.

It is not for me to judge the individual here. Whether you, or somebody you know, might be in that situation is beyond my capacity to judge. I am a member of the laity with no authority to bind or loose. I am not God that I can look into your soul.

All I can do is to ask everyone this: when one is scandalized by something in the Church, please remember that the authority of the Church to teach and Our Lord’s protection is not negated by the sins of the men who are Popes and bishops (cf. Matthew 23:2-3). If a person is tempted to think that the Church must be wrong because what she teaches doesn’t square up with an individual interpretation, such a person should remember: in the history of the Church, there were many Catholics who believed the same thing… and wound up in heresy or schism.