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.

Do We Understand the Purpose of the Church?

We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong. We do not want, as the newspapers say, a church that will move with the world. We want a church that will move the world. (G. K. Chesterton)

 

Lately, I have been seeing Catholics objecting to the Church saying, “We cannot do this,” when it comes the question of whether people who are willingly estranged from the Church can receive things like blessings and the Eucharist. The strawman argument they use is that this treats sacraments and sacramentals like “rewards” for good behavior or “weaponizing” against bad behavior. Some go so far as to claim the Church is engaging in Pelagianism or works based salvation by barring sinners from communion when we are all sinners in need of salvation.

 

Regardless of the intention of the individuals making the argument^†, they do seem to have a misconception about the purpose of the Church and the spiritual blessings she provides through God. The Catholic Church was established by Christ to bring His salvation and His Grace to the world. This involves both strengthening the faithful and bringing those outside of that body into communion. All of us are sinners of course. We need the grace and guidance to constantly turn back to God. 

 

But if we have no interest in turning back to God, or if we refuse to give up what puts us out of right relationship with God, there is a problem. I am not talking about the person who wants to abandon some sin but keeps falling into it. I am talking about the person who demands that the Church change her teaching so that the sin of X is declared is not a sin, claiming the teaching is “legalism” in opposition to “love.” 

 

If we desire to participate in the Sacraments and sacramentals of the Church, we do need to ask ourselves something: What are we prepared to surrender if we think it is so important to receive them? One answer—in fact the first answer—to that question is “to give up the grave sins we commit.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1472) tells us:

 

Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin.

 

While insufficient knowledge and a lack of free consent^‡ might reduce the sin from the category of mortal, nobody can willingly be involved in grave sin and consider themselves in right relationship with God. Since the Sacrament of Reconciliation is necessary for us to get back in right relationship with God and receive the graces these provide, the demand for access to the Sacraments while living in grave sin shows a fundamental error on the part of the person who demands them.

 

Yes, Pope Francis did speak of accompaniment for those who are not in right relationship with God and His Church. He is right in doing so. But accompaniment is not a case of changing the rules about whether an act is a sin. It is helping them as they struggle to give up what is wrong. If those in the Church should fail to even attempt to guide the faithful away from sin, they would be betraying their mission. 

 

Obviously, without God’s grace, it is impossible for anybody to be saved, and God gives the individual free will to respond to it. Since we cannot know if the person has obstinately refused grace or has not received it yet, we cannot write anybody off as reprobate. For as long as they live, we cannot give up on them… no matter how many times they reject us. But neither can we tell them “what you do doesn’t matter.”

 

Because of this, sometimes the Church does have to simply say, “No” in response to a request for the Sacraments or sacramentals. If we start accusing the Church of unjustly excluding people in these cases, we have missed the point of the Church. She is not a vending machine that gives us cheap grace on demand. Her task is what Jesus commissioned her to do:

 

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20)

 

Jesus has made clear (cf. Matthew 7:21, 18:17, Luke 10:16, John 14:15) that if we profess to follow Christ, we are obligated to live as He taught, and the Church is who He has entrusted (cf. Matthew 16:19, 18:18, John 20:22-23) to teach in His name and with His authority. 

 

If we are ever tempted to claim that the Church has gone wrong, we should ask ourselves whether it is possible that we are the ones who have gone wrong.

 

________________

 

(†) As there are many people who do this, it seems imprudent to make a one size fits all kind of judgment about them.

 

(‡) I leave this to the confessor to determine in the case of each individual.

A Foolish Rebellion

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19:4–6)

 

In response to the CDF response about whether a same-sex relationship can be blessed, we have—tragically—seen a group of priests and—shamefully—even some bishops denounce it or state that they will defy the Church over this. In doing so, they have rejected the teaching authority of the Church. It is indefensible^§. 

 

The outrage over the so-called “intolerance” within the Church is nonsense. The Catholic teaching has always recognized that the only legitimate exercise of the sexual act is between one man and one woman in a lifelong relationship open to accepting whatever children God may send. Anything that violates that design must be rejected as contrary to what God has taught.

 

Moreover, the moral obligations taught by the Church are not about power. They are about how me must live if we want to keep God’s commandments (cf. Matthew 28:20), obedience to which are required of us if we profess to love God (John 14:15). Indeed, Jesus Christ explicitly declared that doing God’s will is mandatory (Matthew 7:21-23). He also made clear that (Luke 10:16) “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

 

The people who think they are justified in opposing the Church over a teaching they dislike are taking part in a foolish rebellion. If they know that the Church teaches with God’s authority then they are rebelling against God. But if they do not know or believe that the Church teaches with God’s authority, then what do they think they are they doing? As Pope Francis said (10/23/13):

 

In this, the Church is like Mary: the Church is not a shop, she is not a humanitarian agency, the Church is not an NGO. The Church is sent to bring Christ and his Gospel to all. She does not bring herself—whether small or great, strong or weak, the Church carries Jesus and should be like Mary when she went to visit Elizabeth. What did Mary take to her? Jesus. The Church brings Jesus: this is the centre of the Church, to carry Jesus! If, as a hypothesis, the Church were not to bring Jesus, she would be a dead Church. The Church must bring Jesus, the love of Jesus, the charity of Jesus.

 

Unfortunately, too many people make the error of assuming that Christ’s love is permissive… and if the Church says that some actions are morally wrong, they claim the Church is acting against Christ. But they forget that Christ told the woman caught in adultery to, “Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.” (John 8:11). God forgives us when we repent after sinning. But if we do not repent and expect a “free pass” for the sins we do not feel sorry for, we make a mockery of what Jesus went through for us.

 

None of this permits us to treat other sinners with contempt or cruelty. We need to reach out to them and show compassion as we help them return to God’s love. But the adage is still true about loving the sinner but hating the sin. If we believe Jesus Christ is God, then we need to realize that He does not contradict Himself between the Old and New Testament. Yes, God gradually moved the Israelites away from the harsh punishments of the region, but He never said that evil was now good^†.

 

People may invent arguments claiming that things condemned in the Bible are about unrelated topics^‡, but these are fabrications. It is not only the intention behind an act that makes it wrong. It also includes acts that are wrong by themselves. Temple Prostitution is wrong when used for idolatry, yes. But it is also wrong when used for purposes other than idolatry.

 

So, this foolish rebellion will accomplish nothing in the eyes of God. A blessing for a sin will not be a valid blessing. It will merely be a blasphemous act that puts their souls at risk and misleads those who think that there is no sin. These men will only cause harm, no matter how sincere they are about their actions.

 

Such actions will only lead themselves and others to ruin. 

 

________________________________

 

(§) I do not know whether the CDF will publicly or act behind the scenes against these clergy. But regardless of how they approach it, we can be sure that they did wrong.

 

(†) Some try to point to the Jewish dietary or cultic laws to argue that as we do not follow those, we ought not to be bound by the laws concerning sexual morality either. But this shows religious illiteracy. Those of us who are gentiles are not bound to keep the dietary and cultic laws of the Jews… that is a major part of Acts 15:1-35 after all. But we are obliged to avoid evil acts (cf. Acts 15:20).

 

(‡) Some dishonest examples include saying that the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a sin of “inhospitality” and other condemnations of sexual immorality was merely a condemnation of “temple prostitution.” 

The Rebellion of False Prophets

When the priest Zephaniah read this letter to Jeremiah the prophet, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: Send to all the exiles: Thus says the LORD concerning Shemaiah, the Nehelamite: Because Shemaiah prophesies to you, although I did not send him, and has led you to rely on a lie, therefore thus says the LORD, I will punish Shemaiah, the Nehelamite, and his descendants. None of them shall dwell among this people to see the good I will do for this people—oracle of the LORD—because he preached rebellion against the LORD. (Jeremiah 29:29-32)

As I continue working through the Book of Jeremiah, I’m struck by the emergence of the false prophets who either say what they think and attribute it to God, or say what they think others want to hear. Both are treated as leading people in a lie and as preaching rebellion against God who had something different in mind for the people of Israel as they faced exile in Babylon.

The concept of preaching rebellion struck me as something relevant for our times. Back then, God sent certain prophets who spoke His message to the people while false prophets tried to undermine his message. In this time, we have the Church which was established by Christ to preach and to teach while people who do not agree with what the Church is doing argue that it has gone astray, and God wills something different.

It seems to me that both are examples of the false prophets. In both cases we have those who were given authority by God to teach in His name and people who do not like what is taught and try to undermine it. I suspect that both cases are not so much about deliberate malice as it is not believing the authority of the ones God has sent. The false prophets might sincerely think they understand the situation better. But it is rebellion against God nonetheless because the prophet or the Church which they oppose is teaching with God’s authority.

Things are as bad as they have always been. In 1974, writing about the hostility towards the pontificate of St. Paul VI, Hans Urs Von Balthasar could write about a rebellion that fits the same problems today, 46 years after it was originally written:

To use, for once, the nonsensical division of humanity into a “left” and a “right”, we can say that the “left” is closed to the monarchic, aristocratic, bureaucratic and any other “cratic” claims of the central “apparatus”, while the “right” is split: there is a small segment in which “papolatry” still prevails, but the majority is plagued by a growing fear that the Pope might be captured by the “progressives”, if he himself is not a “leftist” who, at the expense of the “silent Church”, spins questionable diplomatic threads to Moscow and Peking. [Paul VI is meant. The original text was published in 1974—Ed.]

Of course, there is—and always has been among Catholics—a healthy popular sentiment that is faithful to Rome without being blind to the faults and human failings of the curia and even of the pope. Ordinary common sense is able to handle this as a matter of course and without embarrassment. But this sentiment (sound, from the Catholic point of view) is steadily undermined by the mass media, the press and the numerous publications that demonstrate their Christian “adulthood” by an arrogant and even venomous superiority toward all that comes from Rome, happens in Rome or goes to Rome.

—Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church^†, trans. Andrée Emery, Second Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007), 25–26. Bracketed editor notes from the original text.

These parallels between the false prophets in the time of Jeremiah and the critics of the Church today should lead us to consider whether our tendency to downplay the Church when she teaches what we do not want to hear—claiming that her teaching is false—might be seen by God in the same way that he saw Shemaiah, the Nehelamite… as being in rebellion against Him and leading people into a lie. We as Catholics believe that Jesus left us with the Church which teaches with His authority. So, if we follow a false prophet who teaches that this Church is in error, we are following the rebel against God and are without excuse.

We are constantly told that the Church is promoting all sorts of errors. But when we look at what the Church teaches, we see that the false prophets making these accusations are confusing their political and cultural preferences with God’s will. The result is they lead rebellion against God by saying that the Church is being hijacked by “the left” or “the right,” when in fact it is their preferences that are trying to hijack the Church.

 

______________________

(†) The original title of this work translates as “The Anti-Roman Attitude.”

Ahab, Dissent, and the Art of Misrepresentation

When Catholics openly dissent from a teaching, but want to appear as if they’re really the faithful ones, they develop misrepresenting the Church into an art form. Doctrines are reduced to merely human teaching. The teachings of the ordinary magisterium are reduced to optional, often partisan, opinions. The dissenters effectively says, “yes the Church might say this, but they’re wrong and we’re justified in not obeying it.”

One of the most common tactics is to claim that the Church, or a member of the magisterium, is wrongly intruding into the concerns of the state or offering a political opinion. Such dissenters overlook seem to forget that totalitarian dictatorships made the same complaint about the Catholic Church. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and many other regimes have bitterly complained when the Church condemned the evils of their regimes. It becomes especially bizarre when those who hold positions that the Church speaks out against are themselves Catholic. Those individuals come across like King Ahab speaking bitterly against the prophet Micaiah:

Jehoshaphat said, “Is there no other prophet of the Lord here we might consult?” The king of Israel answered, “There is one other man through whom we might consult the Lord; but I hate him because he prophesies not good but evil about me. He is Micaiah, son of Imlah.” (1 Kings 22:7–8)

Common sense says that, when one who speaks with God’s authority speaks against the position a person holds, the person who recognizes that authority in general is a fool if they reject it when directed at him or her. We might laugh at Ahab’s foolishness in refusing to listen, but if we start saying in response to a bishop acting in communion with the Pope, “the Church should be silent, and stick to what they know,” we’re behaving like Ahab did.

Another application of this misrepresentation is when Catholics draw a line in the sand where the Church stays on one side and the state stays on the other. The problem is, this line is arbitrary and does not resemble what the Church actually believes. The Church does in fact have something to say when the state behaves in an unjust way, persecuting those who do right and permitting evils. This is because the Church has a role in speaking out to ensure justice when those who govern violate what is right. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out:

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

A state only has legitimacy if it acts in a way that is just. When the state acts unjustly, the Church must speak out to warn those who govern about the danger to their souls and to the legitimacy of the state, as well as to warn Catholics who live within not to be swept up into supporting the evil. So, when the dissenters side with the rule of government or ideology of a politician in opposition to the teaching of the Church, they are choosing to reject the Church. And, since Catholics should know that the Church teaches with God’s authority (Matthew 16:19, 18:18), then to reject the authority of the Church is to reject God (Luke 10:16).

To get around that, dissenters like to point to sin in the Church and try to claim that grevious evils by some means the guilt of the whole. And, if the whole is guilty (they argue), then the Church cannot teach with authority until those in authority eliminate those evils. Some go so far as to say that the existence of evil removes the authority to teach. It’s a sort of neo-Donatism that pops up in the Church from time to time. Those who promote it will point to evils that exist, and say that the Pope and bishops have lost their authority (something they assume but do not prove). From there (through a non sequitur) they argue that what they teach is right. When the Church rejects their erroneous views, they point to the evil and rejects the authority of the Church. (Martin Luther and John Calvin were especially notorious with this tactic).

The problem is, even though Scripture has a lot to say about what will happen to faithless shepherds, they don’t say that sinful behavior removes authority. Aaron created a golden calf. He did not lose his office for his sin. Peter denied Jesus three times. He did not lose his office. Indeed, Our Lord pointed out (Matthew 23:2-3) that there was a difference between authority and personal behavior. Those who teach with authority must be heeded, but we may not use their bad behavior to justify ours.

Yet another tactic is to argue that X is a worse evil than Y, therefore the Church should not focus on Y while X exists. This is a red herring fallacy, aimed at discrediting those in the Church speaking against Y. Yes, some sins are worse than others. But, if X is less common in the Church in a nation, while people routinely commit Y, it makes sense that the Church would remind the faithful of the fact that Y is evil, lest they go to hell for committing it. As Ezekiel warned through prophecy:

You, son of man—I have appointed you as a sentinel for the house of Israel; when you hear a word from my mouth, you must warn them for me. When I say to the wicked, “You wicked, you must die,” and you do not speak up to warn the wicked about their ways, they shall die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. If, however, you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, but they do not, then they shall die in their sins, but you shall save your life. (Ezekiel 33:7-9)

When the Church calls us out for supporting Y, we often say “the Church should speak out on X instead,” overlooking the fact that we forget their speaking out against X because we resent being called out over Y. But we should be grateful that the Church, as watchman, does not remain silent when we are the ones in danger of hell.

When we’re tempted to balk at the teaching of the Church, we should consider these ways in which we try to evade the religious submission of intellect and will. The Church teaches with the authority of Christ, and we should be very wary around arguments denying that authority. 

Yes, there will be those in the Church who do fall into error when they try to teach in opposition to the Pope. But we trust that God will not permit His Church under the headship of the Pope to teach binding error. Yes, a teaching of the ordinary magisterium is changeable. But that means it can be refined, not that it was heresy before.  If we accuse the Church, when she teaches, of teaching error, we are acting like Ahab who dared to be angry when a prophet warned him of his destruction.

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.

Reform or Rebellion?

(Preliminary note: I am not writing about the very real pain of abuse survivors and their families. I am writing about combox warriors who are recklessly attacking the authority of the Church in the name of “reform.”)

The Church is the ordinary means the Lord uses to bring His salvation to the world (see CCC #738). It also consists of sinners in need of salvation, some of them doing some pretty wicked things or being indifferent to wrongdoing within their power to oppose. We have, on one side, Bible verses insisting that the Church teaches with His authority (Matthew 16:19, 18:18) and to reject the Church is to reject Him (Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16). On the other side, we have the Bible warning the shepherds of their faithlessness (Ezekiel 34:1-10) but also pointing out the obligations of obeying teaching authority while not following personal behavior (Matthew 23:2-3).

We have a Church that binds and looses with Our Lord’s authority, and a Church where the men who lead it can sin. These things are not contradictory. We believe that God protects His Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals, but those who lead the Church still need to work out their salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). There is no guarantee that a successor to the Apostles will make wise decisions in governing his diocese, but he still has the authority to teach in a binding manner—provided that he remains in communion with the Pope. 

Now, it is true that clericalism is wrong. Clericalism tends to reduce a diocese or a parish to a fiefdom where the bishop or priest can arbitrarily act as he pleases, while members of the laity believe they have to accept it. Instead, the magisterium is the servant of, not master over, Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Pope and bishops in communion with him pass on the teaching of the Apostles from generation to generation. Unfortunately, some members of the Church are confusing these things. They think that defending the magisterium of the Church is clericalism. A bishop teaching is not clericalism. A bishop becoming a law unto himself, setting aside his obligations, is clericalism.

Realizing that, the actions of a growing number of Catholics are dangerous. They confuse the teaching authority of their bishop with his sins. If the bishop did wrong (or is suspected of doing wrong), the mob says he has no authority and his fate should be decided by laity. I’ve seen some Catholics argue that we need lay leadership since the bishops can’t be trusted. I’ve even seen a priest call for an ecumenical council with full participation of the laity—which is to give them voting power—because he thinks bishops can’t be trusted.

Remember, I’m not talking about reactions to McCarrick or specific bishops who seem to have deliberately covered up a predator priest. I’m talking about attacks on the authority of The Bishops in general. The problem is, in attacking this way, they are undermining trust in the legitimate authority of the Church. This is the kind of thing that can lead to schism, rejecting the Church if it doesn’t respond to the scandals in the way the mob wants. That’s why, even though I want the Church to censure the wrongdoers, I think this movement goes in a direction I cannot support.

Going back to the Old Testament, we see that regardless of the wrongdoing of the leaders, the Lord also punished those who would usurp that authority which God had given them.

The Rebellions of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16:1-35)

shows how God treats rejection of those He chooses to lead

Throughout history, we have had people angry at corruption in the Church. But some of the movements angry at that corruption wound up separated from Christ’s Church. I don’t think they set out to leave the Church. Rather, the Church not going the direction they wanted led them to decide the leadership was wrong and they were justified in rejecting them. I don’t think this current movement is at that point. I’ve seen some members affirm they intend to stay. But Luther also intended to stay. He didn’t. So, as St. Paul pointed out (1 Corinthians 10:12), “Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.”

No, we shouldn’t just accept any misuse of authority that a priest or bishop commits. Yes, let us make our needs known reverently, as canon 212 tells us. That can include serving the Church in finding just solutions to this evil. But let’s also remember canons 752-753 on authority. If we would be faithful to Jesus, we must hear His Church. 

Don’t accuse me of not caring about victims in writing this. I do care. This scandal has opened my eyes to failures to shepherd where I assumed common sense and policies should have been in place. We do have to get the filth out of the Church. But I believe that this internet apostolate of wrath is not going to solve the problem. Any true reform will keep the nature and teaching authority of the Church in sight. If it doesn’t, it’s not reform. It’s rebellion—and I will not participate in rebellion.

Come What May, The Church Remains

The scandals have shaken the Church. McCarrick and the 300 priests who have credible accusations [§] against them abused their positions to molest children and that is inexcusable. Some bishops were more interested in avoiding scandal than in shepherding their flock. That too is inexcusable. The Church has a procedure to canonically investigate and try bishops and that should be done [†].

However, certain Catholics have taken it further. In their mind, all the bishops should have known and therefore cannot be trusted. They believe that only the laity can save the Church and demand that they lead the investigation, determine the fate of bishops, and have a say in their replacements. The implication is that since none can be trusted (unproven) they cannot lead us. It’s a very anticlerical movement that shows some people do not have a clear understanding of what the Church is.

Others have shown signs of believing that the Church is a simply human institution. I’ve seen parents say they weren’t sure if they wanted their children baptized and priests wonder if the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church (cf. Matthew 16:18). These too are a sign of people not understanding what the Church is. 

What we need to remember is the Catholic Church is the Church Our Lord, Jesus Christ, established and promised to protect, remaining with it until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). That doesn’t mean that the leaders of the Church will be sinless. Even in the best of times, there is corruption. Even with the holiest of Popes and bishops, there are bad decisions. That doesn’t mean we have to be fatalistic about the current crises in this time. Of course we have to work to clean up the Church. But regardless of corruption in the Church, Our Lord’s promise remains. Individuals sin, fall into heresy or schism. But Our Lord does not permit the Church to teach error in His name [¶] regardless of what some of the shepherds may do. 

Remembering this is how we discern true reform from rebellion. In every time of crisis, the true reform has come from those who gave submission to those tasked with leading the Church. False reform came from those who rejected that authority. In fact, the false reform usually spun off into heresies or schisms. 

What we need to remember is that the Church exists as the ordinary means [∞] Our Lord uses to bring His salvation to the world and help us discern how to live faithfully, and that He has entrusted the teaching office to the successors of the Apostles—the Pope and the college of bishops in communion with him. Our Lord made hearing His Church mandatory (Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16). So, when we encounter a movement which refuses or undermines the teaching authority of the Church, we know this movement is not of God.

I understand it is frustrating, especially since some bishops have been revealed as failing to look after their dioceses. How can we tolerate knowing that other bishops, guilty of similar things, may be undetected? The answer is, we must trust that even if a sinful priest or bishop should escape detection, God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7). Our Lord’s warning about millstones (Matthew 18:6) should terrify them about dying unrepentant. We trust that God can and will protect the Church from going astray.

I admit that may be a small consolation for the victims and their families. They do want justice—rightly. But we need to realize that, being but men, our magisterium will not do a flawless job of rooting out corruption, no matter how diligent and sincere they are. For the rest, we must leave it up to God, painful as it may be.

So let us pray for the faithful clergy in this time of trial. Let us pray for the unfaithful clergy that they may repent and be brought to repentance and salvation. Let us pray for the victims, that they might be consoled. Let us pray that we act wisely and not out of sheer emotion. And then, after praying, let’s get to work—but let’s work with the Church, not against her.

_____________________________

[§] Barring any exculpatory evidence a la  the Cardinal Bernadin case—which I do not expect—I have no reason to question the credibility of the cases.

[†] As I understand it, the statute of limitations is past for criminal charges or lawsuits.

[¶] This protection is not “prophecy.”  It isn’t a guarantee of personal moral perfection either. Rather it is a negative protection. It prevents the Church from teaching error, but it doesn’t mean further development isn’t possible.

[∞] Ordinary means is the normal way Our Lord carries out His mission. There’s nothing to stop Him from using an extraordinary means, but it would be presumptuous on our part to knowingly refuse His ordinary means and demand something unusual to save us.

Avoiding Rebellion

If you’ve been following my blog, you know I’ve been warning about certain factions among Catholics who are hijacking certain controversies in the Church to support their ideologies. For example, Catholics who oppose Pope Francis are treating his refinement of Church teaching on the death penalty as “proof “ of his error.” Meanwhile, Catholics who oppose the US bishops because of their opposing Obama on the contraception mandate or Trump on immigration are seizing the McCarrick scandal as “proof” of their moral badness.

Keep in mind I am not talking about people who hear the news and are trying to make sense of it, seeking the truth. I am talking about people who assume everything can be explained by their favorite theories. It’s one thing to be shocked by the McCarrick scandal or the Pennsylvania grand jury report. It’s another to use these cases to advocate dissent.

Tragically, the number of Catholics believing these accusations of theological or moral “badness” are growing. I believe this shows that Catholics seeking to understand these upheavals are believing the constantly repeated accusations from these factions. The people who thought capital punishment was morally good are finding it easier to believe that the Pope teaches error than to consider the possibility that their understanding of the Catholic position is faulty. The people who are appalled by McCarrick are finding it easier to blame “the USCCB” than to grasp that predators can deceive others into thinking they are “good.”

What we need to do is look at the leaders of these anticlerical attacks. Have they had past problems with Church leadership? Is “ignorance” or “liberalism/conservatism” their continual accusation to explain why the magisterium does not go the way they want? If so, it is a warning sign against their reliability as authentic guides. Are they on the record (books, blog, etc) as holding a position that is not compatible with clarified Church teaching? That may be a sign that their objectivity on what is authentic interpretation of Church teaching is questionable.

We need to understand that the Pope does have the authority to determine what is authentic or inauthentic applications of Church teaching. He has the authority to determine how the investigation and trial of a bishop can be handled. Nobody has the authority to hear an appeal against his judgments (canon 1404). So he does have the authority to declare that the use of the Death Penalty is inadmissible in these times. He does have the authority to determine how the investigation of wrongdoing will proceed. We cannot argue that the laity can overrule him or the bishops in the lawful exercise of their positions.

Once we understand this, we might be able to find ways leading to useful reform. If we understand how a canonical investigation/trial works, we can properly apply canon 212 and reverently provide useful input on how to better achieve justice. If we understand the scope of the Pope’s authority (try Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 3, for example) we can avoid needless arguments on whether we need to listen to him (short answer: Yes). 

But if we refuse to learn how things work, if we assume that the error must be with others, not ourselves, then we are not providing religious submission of intellect and will to the authority of the Church. Our interpretation of Scripture is not Scripture itself. Our interpretation of past Church teaching is not past teaching itself. The Pope and bishops in communion with him have the right and responsibility to determine which interpretations are correct.

If we choose our own interpretation over that of the magisterium, if we argue that when we disagree the Church must be wrong, we are choosing a faction over obedience, and becoming rebels.

I Don't Have to Listen to You! Thoughts on Rebellion Against the Ordinary Magisterium

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”; 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 same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Humani Generis)

 

Claudia Carlen, ed., The Papal Encyclicals: 1939–1958 (Ypsilanti, MI: The Pierian Press, 1990), 178.

 

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.

 

Code of Canon Law: New English Translation (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1998), 247–248.

One error that afflicted modernist dissenters for generations, and is now spreading to critics of Pope Francis is the error that if the Pope does not teach ex cathedra, then what he says might be riddled with error and we don’t have to follow it. This position further claims that only the ex cathedra teachings of the Pope are binding, but we can ignore what the bishops. The problem is, since most of the teachings done by the Church don’t involve ex cathedra declarations, this error amounts to justifying disobedience to whatever teaching or Pope the person wants to ignore. 

What this error ignores is the fact that ex cathedra definitions start out as teachings from the Ordinary Magisterium. The infallible definition is only made when the ordinary teaching is denied and needs to be clarified. So the Church infallibly defined Transubstantiation in response to certain individuals rejecting the ordinary magisterium of the Church. So, if the ordinary magisterium of the Church was not binding, then a good number of Church teachings on doctrine and morality would not be binding, and (under this logic) people were “free” to reject these teachings before an Ecumenical Council or a Papal Bull said otherwise.

But the Church, in her wisdom, taught about what the faithful are bound to obey. People forget that the First Vatican Council not only defined the authority of an ex cathedra statement, but also defined that the Pope was to be obeyed under the ordinary magisterium as well:

Hence We teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme Pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation. (Pastor Æternus, Chapter III)

 

Vincent McNabb, ed., The Decrees of the Vatican Council (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1907), 40.

That’s actually a serious (and binding) teaching made in an Ecumenical Council presided over by Pope Pius IX. People who refuse submission to the Pope, acting as Pope, risk the loss of faith and salvation. There is nothing in Church teaching that allows the individual Catholic to withhold obedience from the teaching authority of the Pope. It is only when the Pope does not intend to teach, that one is not bound to follow. If the Pope roots for the Falcons, we’re not obliged to do the same. When Benedict XVI published Jesus of Nazareth, this was not teaching binding doctrine. But when Pope Francis issued Laudato Si, he did say that (#15), “It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face.”

With this so clear, the only way the dissenter can try to evade it is by trying to impeach the authority of the Pope by accusing him of acting against Our Lord Himself (popular with those who want to accuse the Church of being “merciless” in terms of sexual moral teachings) or against the previous teachings of the Church (popular with those who dislike the Church changing disciplines). One popular tactic is to cite the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine [†] that, “a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.” [Ω]

The problem is, we have never had a manifest (proven) heretic Pope. Even Cardinal Burke denies Pope Francis is in heresy. We’ve had two Popes accused of privately holding heresy (Liberius and Honorius), and one Pope (John XXII) who held a personal opinion that had hitherto never been defined but was later condemned by his successor. One could argue from St. Robert Bellarmine (in the forgotten part of his opinion) that this is a sign, “that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and hence would not be deposed in any case: such an opinion is probable, and can easily be defended, as we will show in its proper place.” [§]  

So when critics of the Pope argue that they can ignore or reject the Pope if he teaches what they think is error, we see they have made an argument without authority which tries to claim the Pope or bishops who teach what they dislike can be rejected. But as we’ve shown above, the Church does not now nor ever accepted this as valid. To be blunt, these people are living in a fantasy world which can endanger their souls. They think their interpretations must be right and a Pope or bishop who says otherwise must be in error. But it is the Pope and bishops in communion with him who have the authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition and apply it to the problems of today. We trust that God protects His Church from teaching error in matters we are bound to obey. Otherwise we would be caught in a paradox—being forced to obey the Church (Luke 10:16, Matthew 18:17) in disobeying Our Lord by His own command. 

I find it far more reasonable to believe that God protects His Church, under the stewardship of the Pope, from teaching error than to believe that He reneged on His promise to be with His Church always (Matthew 28:20) and to protect it (Matthew 16:18-19) after Vatican II or after Pope Francis was elected Pope. That may involve the Holy Spirit dissuading a bad Pope from teaching at all.

But the rebellion against the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church when the Church intends to teach is dangerous. Whether it is based on ignorance or obstinacy, we will have to account for why we did not obey the Church and chose to trust in ourselves instead of Him when Our Lord Himself declared the Church necessary.

 

_________________________________

[†] For a more in depth analysis of St. Robert Bellarmine that I wrote, see HERE.

[Ω] Bellarmine, Robert (2015-05-22). On the Roman Pontiff (De Controversiis Book 1) (p. 309). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition. It should be noted that the term “true opinion” does not mean “fact.” It means an opinion reached through valid reasoning.

[§] Bellarmine, Robert (2015-05-22). On the Roman Pontiff (De Controversiis Book 1) (p. 304). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition. The saint goes on to say that the opinions that a Pope can be deposed for heresy can only be considered if this view is false. But he just said he considers this view probable and easily defended. So the rest is more of a theoretical exercise.

Remembering Forgotten Teaching: Obedience and Docility

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹ I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:18–19).

 

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. ^18 k Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:17–18)

Attempts to cast oneself as a faithful Catholic by challenging the shepherds of the Church ultimately turn out to be chasing shadows. Chasing them can lead to our ruin as we follow them over treacherous ground. Our Lord created a visible Church where we can turn to know God’s teaching and how it is applied from generation to generation.

It is not the Pope and bishops endangering the Church, but those who forget this promise, who think the Church—especially her shepherds—must have erred and must be opposed, that deceive and scatter the faithful. Some of these people are clergy, some are laity. But the fact is, they do not have the authority to change what the Church teaches, nor to cite one favored teaching against a despised teaching. They cannot change what we are obligated to be and do. Yet in each age, such false teachers arise. Today, they come from the modern political divide of conservative/liberal, or the modern theological divide of modernist/traditionalist. Of course, these are not the only divides. Church history tells us of many divisions where people scrambled to challenge Church teaching. It would be meaningless to apply our current dichotomies to those factions. But one constant remains despite the divisions of history: these false teachers cannot demand we follow them over the shepherds of the Church.

The problem is, these false teachers try to invoke their personal interpretation on how a teaching should be applied as if it were Church teaching. They tell us that a Pope or bishop is in error if they do not meet the accusers’ ideals.

Of course we can have bad Popes (I deny the current Pope is one) and bishops throughout history. They hinder the mission of the Church by bad personal example. But no Pope has ever taught error (a couple have debatably held to error privately), and while some bishops throughout history have fallen into error, and sometimes heresy, they have not done so when following the teaching of the Pope. I think that’s something we forget. We’re so busy splitting hairs over the limits of an ex cathedra teaching, that we forget that protecting the Church is largely a negative function (preventing error from being taught) and that a formally defined dogma is rare.

Forgetting this creates a bizarre claim—that a disliked Pope is not protected from teaching error as Pope. But if this is true, then we can never know when a Pope taught error. If Blessed Paul VI brought error and spiritual harm to the Church with the Missal of 1970, how can we know St. Pius V didn’t bring error and spiritual harm into the Church with the Missal of 1570? If we will not trust God to protect His Church from error then we become “Cafeteria Catholics,” who pick and choose what we like and deny authority of the rest.

Recognizing both this protection and the fact that the Pope is the successor of Peter, we see the folly of trying to line up people against the Pope as if their opinions outweighed his teaching. A bishop has authority when in communion with the Pope, not in opposition. Otherwise the Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops would have authority over faithful Catholics.

If the bishops have no authority when not in communion with the Pope, the laity have even less. The armchair theologian, the blogger (including me), the canon lawyer, the combox warrior, the religion reporter have no authority to bind and loose at all. Their credibility depends on accurately representing the Catholic faith. The layman can do great things for the Church, but he has no right to demand acceptance for his opinion over the magisterium.

Think of it this way. In the legal system, a lawyer can be knowledgable about the law and can make compelling arguments on why it should be applied as he thinks. But neither his knowledge nor his arguments are authority. He argues the case, but the judge decides whether his application is right or wrong. The Church works in a similar way. Yes, each of us can read Church documents, and each of us can form an opinion on what they mean and how they should be applied. But our reading and interpretation are not Church teaching. It is the current magisterium who rules on how we must apply Church teaching for today.

That being said, we need to clear up misconceptions. This isn’t an assertion that the Pope and bishops can do whatever they want The magisterium is the servant, not superior to Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We do not hold some sort of “ultramontanism” (a popular slur against Papal defenders). We are stating the reality of who decides where to draw the line.

This is important when we address concerns and desires. Yes, Canon Law 212 tells us the faithful have the right and sometimes the duty to make their needs known. But the Pope and bishops have the authority to determine what practices should be maintained and which can be changed for the good of the faithful. In past centuries, people used to know this. St. Francis de Sales (made clear that we do not err in obedience to those in rightful authority acting for our spiritual benefit:

If this refers to those who have from God the power and duty to guide your soul and to command you in spiritual things, you are certainly right. In obeying them you cannot err, although they may err and advise you badly, if they look principally to any thing else than your salvation and spiritual progress.

 

Francis de Sales, Letters to Persons in the World, trans. Henry Benedict Mackey and John Cuthbert Hedley, Second Edition, Library of Francis de Sales (London; New York; Cincinnatti; Chicago: Burns and Oates; Benziger Brothers, 1894), 33.

So, some may want ad orientum, return to the use of Latin, or even a return to the Missal of 1962 for the whole Church. It’s not wrong to prefer these things, but some do wrong by rejecting the decision if the magisterium when it goes against what they want. Charity and docility to legitimate authority means we recognize they receive the power and responsibility to lead the Church from God. Accusing the Pope and bishops of bad will is not being a good Catholic “defending the faith.” It is dissent.

Once we realize this, we see the rebels have no authority to act against the Pope. They can’t treat his teaching as error. Nor can they treat it as opinion. Once the Pope teaches, even if it is not ex cathedra (see Canon Law 751-754), we must give assent. Those who will not may be clamorous and disturb us, but they have no authority to remake the Church to what they want it to be. Their clamor must be dismissed like shadows (Psalm 73:20), not given credibility, while we reach out to the world to bring them to Our Lord (Matthew 28:20).

I’d like to conclude by stressing one point. We’re not expected to be mindless sheep here with a blind obedience. As human beings, we all have our preferences and our dislikes, and we certainly have the right to make a respectful appeal to have these things addressed. However, we also need to remember what the Church knew in past centuries—that the Pope and bishops are given authority to determine what is best for the Church. We cannot rebel against this authority in the name of being “faithful Catholics.” That is simply a contradiction.