It’s Iimi! At The Point of Breaking!

Krysta is struggling with what to do about Daryl constantly warring with Iimi. A discussion with Kismetta after witnessing an argument over Archbishop Cordileone’s response to Nancy Pelosi makes her realize how those outside the Church view the scandal of dissent and disrespect. Realizing she and Daryl are on opposite sides, she resolves to talk with him. But what will happen when she does?

(While the cover says 5/25, I decided to push it forward to today because of the escalating attacks)

Archbishop Cordileone’s statement to Pelosi and his statement to the faithful can be seen at these links:
 https://www.sfarchdiocese.org/notification-to-the-speaker-of-the-house-of-representatives-of-the-united-states-congress-nancy-pelosi/

 https://sfarchdiocese.org/letter-to-the-faithful-on-the-notification-sent-to-speaker-nancy-pelosi/

The Schönborn Controversy: How We Can and Cannot Respond

Canon 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.

 

Cardinal Schönborn issued a public statement (an unofficial translation can be found HERE) the other day that gives the appearance of contradicting the CDF response and commentary on the dubia concerning the blessing of homosexual unions. Given the good relationship between Pope and Cardinal up to this point, many people were startled. Given the fact that certain German bishops are displaying open antipathy for the statements, it is easy to draw the conclusion that this is more of the same.

 

The circumstances are not identical, however. Cardinal Schönborn was not making an official statement of dissent or schism. He was answering a question from the father of a homosexual son, concerned that the Church was rejecting him. The Cardinal’s response seems aimed at trying to reassure the father. The problem is—barring a clarification or proof of a mistranslation in the various quotes provided—his response does seem to conflict with the CDF statement regardless of his intention.

 

That is a crucial distinction here. We are forbidden to commit rash judgment or calumny. So, we cannot accuse him of malicious intent over this statement. But, given what the CDF response and commentary have said, we cannot claim that his statement is compatible with them either.

 

The issue at hand begins with the Cardinal expressing disappointment with the CDF:

 

I was not happy about this statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the simple reason that the message that came across in the media throughout the world was only a ‘no.’ And that is a ‘no’ to the blessing; and that is something that hurts many people deeply, like they would feel and say: ‘Mother, don’t you have a blessing for me? I am your child too, after all,'

 

He goes on to say,

 

If the request for a blessing is honest and not a show, i.e., not a kind of public stunt—if it really is the request of God’s blessing for a life that two people, in whatever situation, are attempting to share—then they should not be refused this blessing.

 

Even though I as priest or bishop must tell them, “You have not realized the full ideal. But it is important that you continue on the path of human virtue, without which there cannot be a good/successful partnership.” And that deserves a blessing. If a liturgical celebration of a blessing is the proper way to do this—that needs careful consideration.

 

This understanding is at odds with what the CDF said in their response:

 

The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God.

 

This is reinforced in the Commentary:

 

For the above reasons “the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit”. This statement in no way detracts from the human and Christian consideration in which the Church holds each person. So much so that the response to the dubium “does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching”.

 

The language used assumes that the individual person with same sex attraction who is seeking the blessing intends to live in fidelity to the revealed plan of God... which a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) in a sexual relationship outside of marriage does not do.

 

Therefore, we have at least the appearance of public conflict that causes scandal. The faithful can charitably express concern over this… charitably being the key word. Terms like “heretic” and “schismatic” have specific meanings that need to be proven:

 

Canon 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.

 

These terms should not be casually thrown about.

 

One thing we should remember: We will not see the Vatican issue a thundering denunciation of the Cardinal. Even in cases where the CDF does eventually issue a formal condemnation, this comes after years of dialogue and attempts at correction when the person involved refuses correction. There is no evidence that Cardinal Schönborn’s problematic statement was issued in willful and obstinate rejection of the Church.

 

So, yes, we can and should be troubled by what was said. But no, we cannot make accusations of willful malice against him.

This Time We Have a Farce

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. 

—Karl Marx^†. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

Whatever the reader thinks of the results, after all the yelling and shouting is done, we have a new President, installed on January 20^th. The 22^nd brought us the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the March for Life (rendered virtual by the coronavirus). Watching the usual two factions squaring off once again, I am reminded by the quote of Karl Marx. We are seeing history happening twice. The first was tragedy. This is farce.

The tragedy was watching a certain faction of American Catholics deny the authority of the bishops when they spoke out on the injustice of immigration policies and the application of the death penalty. They accused the bishops of supporting the Democratic Party. The other major faction of American Catholics pointed to this defiance as a proof that the first faction was committing political idolatry by rejecting or downplaying those teachings.

The farce came when we had a change of Presidential administrations. Then, Catholics of that second faction did everything they denounced the first faction of doing. Though instead of downplaying or rejecting Church teaching on immigration policies, they downplayed the Church teaching on abortion and the need to end it legally. They accused the bishops of supporting the Republican Party. Meanwhile the first faction pointed out their own double standards.

If both factions can point out the fact that their opponents were doing wrong, it testifies to the fact that they both know right from wrong. And, if they both know this right and wrong, they are without excuse when they do what they condemned in others. What they are doing is causing scandal by leading those outside of the Church to think that Church teaching is whatever we want to be. They will not take us seriously and not believe our claims of Apostolic succession and the binding authority when, at any one time, half of the American Church is condemning and refusing obedience to the bishops when they teach.

These people will not listen to correction. If you point out that the Church has taught contrary to their assertions, they will accuse the Church and you of being in error or being a political shill for their enemies while they claim they are being faithful to the Pope (they are not) or Sacred Tradition (again, they are not) as a higher loyalty of obedience. Of course, it is always their owninterpretation of these things. Using the No True Scotsman fallacy, they insist that whatever contradicts their own interpretation is not truly Catholic, regardless of who taught it. 

It is too late to undo the original tragedy. I do not see any evidence that participants in the farce will change their views to obedience either. So, all we can do is work to engage people of good will and help them understand that our beliefs are not only reasonable, but the only way to live rightly.

Unfortunately, we will run into a lot of trolls out there in the process. We will run into people who calumniate us as giving “comfort to the enemy.” On the Left, we will see claims that standing up for the right to life against abortion makes one guilty of every wrong an anti-abortion politician should commit. On the Right, we will see the same thing directed against those who remind us of the Church teaching on the death penalty and immigration. We will see lots of spurious logic and special pleading as people try to explain why their own failings are “different.”

We will have to stay consistent. If a person is tempted to say, “You’re not pro-life, you’re only anti-abortion,” that person claims he has knowledge about the full teaching on the Right to Life. The Church has taught enough about the evil of abortion that someone claiming to be knowledgeable about what the Right to Life really means. And, when the Church makes clear how to apply the timeless teaching for the conditions of today on the death penalty and immigration, we cannot claim to be faithfulCatholics if we refuse obedience.

Since both sides are claiming to be faithful Catholics, they have an obligation to obey when taught. And if they do not understand the teaching, they have an obligation to seek out the meaning. If they do not, they contribute both to tragedy and farce.

 

___________________

(†) Of course, I do not approve of Marx in any way. But this quote does seem to effectively describe the situation that partisan Catholics put the Church in.

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.

Reflection on the Making of Schism

In fire safety classes, we’re told about the four¹ conditions necessary for a fire to start: Fuel, Heat, Oxygen, and Flashpoint or Ignition. They call it a fire tetrahedron. Without all four conditions, you don’t have a fire. I bring this up because, as I study ecclesial history and the writings of those who wound up separated from the Catholic Church, I’ve noticed that the schismatic movements have similar things in common that brought them about, regardless of what era they took place in. Like a fire, there needs to be four conditions to set a a schism rolling. Using the tetrahedron as an analogy, these things seem to be^*:

• (Fuel) Some sort of real or perceived scandal that angers a large percentage of the Catholic population in the region where the schism occurs.
• (Heat) Some sort of demagogue or symbolic figure who is at odds with the Church on one or more issues.
• (Oxygen) A misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches.
• (Combustion or Flashpoint) A point that causes the break in trusting the Church.

Let’s look at each of these:

(Fuel) A Real or Perceived Scandal

The Church, which Our Lord entrusted to sinful human beings, will always have scandals that anger the faithful. Some of these are real scandals. Others are things perceived to be scandals, but are not. The difference between the two is, with a real scandal, the Church needs to clean it up—justly—the sooner the better. The perceived scandal is when the Church has done nothing wrong, but people in some part of the Church think she is to blame for something that has gone wrong. The tricky part is understanding the difference. The Church must discern the two, and deal with it appropriately.

A real scandal is something like the current clerical abuse scandal. It needs to be cleaned up. A perceived scandal is not a scandal, but some people wrongly attack the Church over it. Fr. Adrian Fortescue describes how Photius stirred up a schism in the 9th century by an admixture of condemning differing customs (points 1-2) and stating falsehoods about the disciplines of the Latin Rite which were never imposed on the East (points 3-5):

There are five points: 1. The Latins make the Bulgars fast on Saturday (so they do: that was then the universal custom in the Roman Patriarchate). 2. They eat butter, milk, and cheese during the first week of Lent (that is: we do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday, whereas the Byzantines do on Quinquagesima Monday). 3. They despised married priests and thereby show themselves to be infected with Manichæan error. 4. They do not acknowledge Confirmation administered by a priest. 5. They have changed and corrupted the Creed by adding to it the Filioque. The doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from God the Father and God the Son he described as “godless, atheistic, and blasphemous.” Photius then declares: “We, by the decree of our holy synod, have therefore condemned these forerunners of apostasy, these servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, these liars and fighters against God … and we have solemnly excommunicated them.”

(Fortescue, Adrian. The Orthodox Eastern Church, p. 153)

While the Church must avoid laxity in scandals (the corruption scandals that were fuel for the Protestant Revolt were tragically neglected until they became one of the rallying points), she must also avoid scapegoating or surrendering acts of teaching and governance. If it turns out that the public outrage is directed at something that is not the fault of the Church (usually, this comes over a misperception over what the real problems are), the Church needs to oppose the mob.

(Heat) A Demagogue

Every schism has a leading figure people look to who is at odds with the Church and refuses to admit error when challenged. Some of these demagogues are heretics who obstinately reject what the Church teaches, claiming that she fell into error and until she follows the heresiarch, the Church will remain in error. Others accept the teachings of the Church but reject those who shepherd her, denying their authority or sacramental validity, giving authority to their preferred leaders instead. Patristic era heresies include the Arians and Nestorians. Patristic era schisms include the Novatians and Donatists. 

Both heretical and schismatic demagogues provide the heat to go along with the fuel of real and perceived scandal, and the oxygen of misinformation, raising the danger of schism. The more of the other conditions exist in the Church, the more influence the demagogue is likely to have. Luther probably wouldn’t have gotten far if resentments hadn’t made him seem like a potential cure. He wasn’t, but the fact that he was speaking against abuses led people to accept his claims that they existed because of “errors” in Church teaching.

Here we need to make a distinction between a demagogue and a legitimate reformer in the Church. The former eventually rejects the Church (whether by formal schism or simply refusing obedience) if the Church should say something they propose is wrong, and tries to lead others to follow their vision. The latter accepts and obeys the Church when she says a proposal is incompatible with the Church teaching and proposes reform while obedient in response.

(Oxygen) The Misinterpretation/Misrepresentation (or Rash Judgment/Outright Lies)

I should start by warning against taking an analogy too far. In the literal sense, Oxygen is something essential for life. In the sense of this analogy, it is only used as one of the things needed for a fire to exist.

The oxygen the fire of schism needs is misinformation^# that leads people to think it is an unjust institution instead of the Body of Christ. When there is a movement aimed at undermining the teaching of the Church, it’s not enough for those who lead the movement to say, “this is what we believe.” They have to undermine the Church which tells the demagogue and his followers that their view is false. They don’t do this by saying “the Church teaches X this way, but we think X should be taught that way. You decide for yourself.” Instead, they tend to describe the Church teaching in the worst way possible, accusing the Church of holding errors because the Church doesn’t side with them. In the schisms that exist (Orthodox, Protestant, etc.), the Catholic teaching is misunderstood or misrepresented in such a way that makes us look diabolical while the Catholic reading their claims can only say “what in the hell are you talking about?”

One example is Martin Luther. It was not enough for him to say that he disagreed with the Catholic Church and thought our teaching on the Mass and the Sacrament of Penance was wrong. He had to misrepresent them as purely human institutions invented for corrupt purposes²—saying things the Catholic Church never believed, taking documents out of context to “prove” his point.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of nonsense of this type among Catholics too. When we see Catholics state that a Pope or Council intended to “make the Church Protestant” (actual Protestants I have talked to are puzzled by that claim, recognizing that our teachings and the Ordinary Form of the Mass are nothing like their beliefs and practices), it shows that misinformation is more widely believed than the actual teaching of the Church. Pope Francis is widely accused of “reversing” Church teaching and welcoming “pagan practices” when both claims are based on misinformation. 

One can see a lot of this online. I routinely encounter Catholics who tell me to “open my eyes” or say that I’m refusing to consider the “truth” of their position. The problem is, what these Catholics cite as “proof” is misinformation. What they describe is a distortion of the truth. I don’t know what percentage has read but misunderstood what the Pope has taught, what percentage has decided to misrepresent what they dislike, and what percentage is merely “the blind following the blind.” This is why I try to avoid assuming bad will on the part of those I encounter. But the accusations are false. There are a lot of these falsehoods out there, regardless of the motivation. They lead the people astray. Combined with the other aspects discussed, it can cause a dispute to become a conflagration.

(Combustion) Refusal to Believe that the Church teaches with God’s authority and protection

The above three points will always be found in different ways and times in the Church. We’ll always have to deal with scandal, with people at odds with the Church, and with Catholics believing falsehoods about the Church. But the fuel, heat, and oxygen are not enough to have a fire, although if all three are present, we are in grave risk of the fire of schism if the flashpoint is introduced to the mix. That flashpoint is the refusal to accept the Church under the visible head, the Pope, as teaching with the authority given by Christ and protected by error. They might try to argue that they support “the Papacy, but not this Pope” (as Hans Urs von Balthasar warned against³) but Pius XI reminds us:

22. Faith in the Church cannot stand pure and true without the support of faith in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The same moment when Peter, in the presence of all the Apostles and disciples, confesses his faith in Christ, Son of the Living God, the answer he received in reward for his faith and his confession was the word that built the Church, the only Church of Christ, on the rock of Peter (Matt. 16:18). Thus was sealed the connection between the faith in Christ, the Church and the Primacy. True and lawful authority is invariably a bond of unity, a source of strength, a guarantee against division and ruin, a pledge for the future: and this is verified in the deepest and sublimest sense, when that authority, as in the case of the Church, and the Church alone, is sealed by the promise and the guidance of the Holy Ghost and His irresistible support.

(Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, #22)

We need to make a distinction here. Having a difficulty understanding how something the Church teaches fits in with what actions one sees or with what one thinks Scripture or Church documents say is not the problem if he strives to recognize where he got it wrong. It’s when we say “I’m not wrong, the Church is wrong,” refusing to trust the authority of the Church that comes from the Catholic Church being the Church established by Christ and protected by Him when the Church goes against what we think it should  do. If one reaches that point, they risk making a shipwreck of their faith.

We certainly have evidence of bad men becoming Popes in history yet, upon becoming Popes, suddenly refused to carry out the errors they were inclined to do before their election. Consider the case of Pope Vigilius who actually helped get his predecessor exiled and killed with the understanding that when he became Pope, he would return heretical bishops to their sees. But once he became Pope, the Liber Pontificalis tells us he stood up for the Church and would not carry out his task:

But Vigilius replied: “Far be this from me, Lady Augusta. I spoke beforetime wrongly and foolishly; now I do assuredly refuse to restore a man who is a heretic and under the anathema. Although unworthy, I am the vicar of blessed Peter, the apostle, as were my predecessors, the most holy Agapitus and Silverius, who condemned him.”

People trying to discredit Pope Francis by claiming a Pope can teach error should consider this case. In a real case of corruption with the intention to enable heretics, God appears to have prevented him from going ahead with his pre-papal plan, even though he was imprisoned for his refusal. If God should prevent this, isn’t it foolish to think that He would permit a Pope to teach errors?

What these critics don’t seem to consider is that while Popes can change discipline depending on the needs of the Church in a certain time (so a successor could change a discipline enacted by Pope Francis) the Church in communion with the Pope is protected from teaching error. If truth was sometimes found in Rome, sometimes in Constantinople, sometimes in Econe, we could never know for certain when THE CHURCH was teaching truly in any instance. If one would reject Pope Francis when he teaches, why not St. Pius V? If one would reject Vatican II, why not Trent, or even Nicea?

I call this part the flashpoint because of how it interacts with the other elements. This element views the scandals with hopelessness and treats the magisterium as an enemy instead of approaching scandals something to pray about. It looks at the demagogue and thinks “maybe he has a point in his attacks on the Church.” It assumes that the false information about the Church must be true. The person who loses sight of the fact that the Catholic Church, under the Pope as visible head, teaches with Christ’s authority and protection will be tempted to view whatever problems that exist in the Church as places where “the Church is wrong and I am right.”

The Fire of Schism

Each of these conditions are serious and the Church needs to work to eliminate them—the sooner the better. But the existence of up to any three of conditions will not cause a schism. There have always been scandals in the Church or people who wrongly believe that something they don’t understand is a scandal. There have always been demagogues at odds with the Church. There have always been misunderstanding and falsehoods about Church teaching. And there have always been people who lost faith in the Church. But it seems that schism is usually present only when all four conditions are present. The demagogue exploits real scandals or invents false ones. The faithful misunderstand or fall for misrepresentation about the Church. And, even though we have the obligation to trust and obey the Church, under the the headship of the Pope (see canon 752), some of the faithful, facing these problems decide they can’t trust the Church anymore until it becomes what they think the Church should be.

And then you get a schism. Schisms have happened throughout Church history. We need to prevent them and heal those that do start. Not because the Church will fail without those who leave (the Church survived previous schism, and will survive any future schism). But because Jesus doesn’t want us to be satisfied with the 99 sheep who didn’t stray. We need to bring back the 100th. Moreover, the efforts of the Church to go out to the whole world is hampered by the division as she must expend effort to bring back to the fold those who strayed.

Final Thoughts: Whither the Church today?

Since I’ve been speaking out against anti-Francis Catholics since 2013, and have on occasion expressed concern about schism, you may wonder how I view the state of the Church today under these categories. My opinion is we have three of the four conditions present: the fuel (scandal), the oxygen (falsehoods), and the flashpoint (a loss of belief in what the Church is). What I think we lack is a demagogue. Yes, there are people who refuse obedience to the Church, insisting the Church errs. But we don’t have an Arius or a Nestorius. We don’t have a Luther or a Calvin. We don’t even have a Lefebvre. We do have⁴ grossly irresponsible websites that are run by disgruntled Catholics who might have the will, but their influence is small. We do have⁴ some highly placed Churchmen who might have the following and have (in my opinion) used rhetoric I think is imprudent to the point of recklessness, but these Churchmen don’t seem to will an all out conflict with the Pope (though some of their followers from the irresponsible websites seem willing to follow them if they would give the word, thinking it only a matter of time⁵).

If a schism should come from this quarter, I don’t think it would happen during the pontificate of Pope Francis (though I could be wrong). I think it would happen in the pontificate of his successor who upheld Pope Francis and moved forward on the same path. This would be the end of their false hope that the Church would “go back” to the way that they prefer. If they would not recognize their own error, they might be led to abandon the fiction of “just the Pope’s erroneous opinion,” “prudential judgment,” or the like, but instead of repenting, they risk outright denying that God protects His Church. And then they are in grave danger.

So, that being said, what should we do? First, I think we should look at ourselves. Are we in any danger of making a shipwreck of our faith? We might think not, but I suspect nobody ever joined a schism unless they harbored resentment and defiance that rose from these conditions. We should pray and study that we might understand and remain in full communion with the Church—which means giving religious submission of intellect and will to the Pope, even in the darkest of times. Second, I think we can’t be silent when misinformation, perceived scandals or demagogues shake the faithful. And third, we should pray for those who are struggling, that they might not become demagogues or fall into the traps. After that, we need to have faith in God to protect His Church, come what may.

_____________

[*] Assigning these categories to specific elements needed for fire is largely arbitrary. I could have just as easily applied “oxygen” (for example) to scandal as to misinformation. So please don’t draw more from these classifications than convenient illustrations.

[1] There used to be three. I remember in the Cub Scouts, they used an image of a tripod needing three sides to stand. Modern safety classes now include “ignition” as a fourth condition. It kills the analogy, but is more accurate. That’s why you see signs warning about fire danger in the summer: three out of four conditions are present, waiting only for the ignition.

[#] To clarify the interchangeable usage: The unintentional spread of misinformation can be classified as misunderstanding or misinterpretation. The deliberate spread of misinformation is misrepresentation. But whatever the intent, if what someone spreads is false, it’s misinformation.

[2] For one example, see (though I don’t recommend it) The Babylonian Captivity. I leave it to God to judge what Luther’s culpability might be, but whether from misunderstanding or misrepresentation, his charges were falsehoods, tragically still believed by anti-Catholics.

[3] from The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church:

“The papacy but not this pope” is a further step. Beginning with Gerson, Gallicanism attempted this step (with the best of intentions, theologically) by trying to differentiate between the sedes, which is indefectible, and the sedens, who is not. This approach was mistaken and impracticable from the outset, as de Maistre pointed out. Gasser, in his final address at Vatican I, emphasized that infallibility is not a prerogative of an abstract papacy but of the pope actually reigning.

[4] As usual, no names in these cases. I leave it to God to assess the culpability of individuals. I just try to point out dangers.

[5] This is why I am cautious about joining in on the attacks some defenders of the Pope make against these high ranking Churchmen. Since some supporters of the Pope misrepresent him to bolster their own ideology, it’s possible that these Churchmen’s supporters are doing the same. I might say on my blog Facebook page that I fear that Cardinal X’s words are dangerous, but I try to avoid violating the Golden Rule in doing so. 

That doesn’t mean I give a free pass to what they do say. I recall favoring one cardinal to become Pope in 2013 (I had never heard of Cardinal Bergoglio then), but the experience of the past six years leads me to believe he would not have been a good choice.

Do We Act as We Believe? The Double Standard Trap

There’s a saying, falsely attributed to St. Francis of Assisi: “Preach always. If necessary, use words.” Sometimes mocked by people who don’t understand it, it actually means we should realize that our behavior will show others how seriously we really take our faith. As Tertullian described the words of persecutors seeing the behavior of Christians: 

The practice of such a special love brands us in the eyes of some. ‘See,’ they say, ‘how they love one another’; (for they hate one another), ‘and how ready they are to die for each other.’ (They themselves would be more ready to kill each other.)” (Apology, Chapter 39).

Keeping this in mind, Catholics have to beware giving a bad witness by the tendency to condone in an ally something which they absolutely will not tolerate in an opponent. So, you might see the gaffes of politician A treated as proof of senility, while similar gaffes by politician B is treated as a simple mistake. You might see a Catholic blogger condemn voting for Candidate X on grounds of limiting evil while advocating voting for candidate Y on the same grounds. This can also happen within the Church. You might see a Catholic denouncing other Catholics dissenting against the teaching of one Pope while rejecting the authority of his successor.

I call this “Okay for me, but not for thee.” It’s not limited to Catholics of course. But since we’re supposed to be the light of the world, the city on the hill, the salt of the earth, the witness we bear should be consistent. If a thing is wrong, we are supposed to bear witness to the truth in both our words and actions. But if we turn a blind eye to the sins of our allies, the witness our actions bear shows that we don’t really act from love and justice. Rather we act hypocritically from partisan motivations. And if the person who sees this and is repelled by it ends up facing judgment for rejecting the call from God, we are likely to face judgment alongside him or her.

This doesn’t mean we treat our friends like enemies, harshly judging their actions (cf. Matthew 7:1ff). Nor does it mean that we treat wrongdoers with laxity. It means we act justly and mercifully to friend and foe alike. We refuse to ever justify evil, but we act in a way that seeks the good of the wrongdoers and not driving them away from seeking salvation.

That is the witness we want to show by our actions: behavior that leads the other to ask, “what guides these people to live in this way.” Then our words will be recognized as sincere, that we really believe and practice what we call them to be.

Reflections on the Eve of the Summit

[Preliminary Note—None of this should be interpreted as being directed at those who were victims or family members of victims. Nor should it be interpreted as telling them to “be quiet.” This is about understanding the issues and the purpose of the summit while avoiding condemning it for not doing what it never was supposed to.]

Let’s be clear on something. The Abuse Summit being held in the Vatican is not going to be an Inquisition. It’s not going to drag McCarrick before the body in chains. Bishops won’t be forced to accuse themselves of covering up or being part of a “homosexual cabal.” There won’t be an auto da fé. It won’t be an ecumenical council either. We won’t see the summit drastically changing Church disciplines or teachings. Anyone expecting this (especially the “Summit will be a failure unless they do X” crowd) will be disappointed.

What there will be is a meeting aimed at making the bishops aware of their obligations in the face of reports of abuse, and making clear that this is not just an “American (or western) problem.” There will be discussion of what worked or failed to work. There will be listening to victims. And there will be prayer. The success or failure will not be in what is said and done. It will be in what each country’s bishops do in response.

Notice the vast difference between the two visions. It seems like some people who hate the Pope and some people who want the Church to drastically change her teachings in general are setting expectations that they know will not be met so they can claim failure and allege “coverup” as the reason.

But there are things we need to do to prepare for the summit. First, we need to realize that when corruption festers, it takes years, even decades to clean up. That’s because we not only have to track down people responsible, but also identify and correct those false ideas that might have led people to think that staying silent was a legitimate option. This means educating Catholics about the difference between being faithful to the Church and being silent because a member of the clergy abuses his authority by abuse or coverup.

Second, we need to recognize this isn’t the first step finally taken for opposing abuse. It’s not the final step that will fix everything either. The Church has made many attempts to prevent abuse and ensure that the abusers did not go unpunished. Some worked. Some didn’t. For example, when you read the 1917 Code of Canon Law, you see that there were rules that mandated that the bishop be informed of abuse by a priest in a timely manner [†]. For example:

Technically, if these canons had been followed by all parties, this could have prevented McCarrick from getting away with his crimes for so long.

Unfortunately, these canons didn’t understand the victim might be unable to overcome trauma and shame to come forward. Nor did it allow for the possibility that those who were supposed to pass that information on would fail to carry out their duties. It was also assumed that an abuser priest acted out of attraction to a specific person, and moving the priest away from that victim would end the problem. These assumptions were obviously wrong, and probably added to the sense of suffering for the victims.

So, we can see it’s not a case of “the Church became lax after Vatican II.” We can’t just “go back,” because the known cases from the 1930s until Vatican II happened during this supposed strong period. What the Church is doing now is recognizing where procedures for dealing with these accusations have been ineffective, and working on sharing where the procedures have succeeded.

And in some cases they have. In the United States, the of number of cases peaked in the 1980s, and then began to decline. Since 2002, after the Dallas Accords, new cases of abuse have fallen sharply. The new revelations of priests who abused and bishops who covered up were not recent cases. They were old cases recently uncovered [§]. Yes, they should have been revealed when the other cases were discovered. Yes, this lack of disclosure seriously damaged the faithful’s trust in the Magisterium of the Church.

But, we cannot assume everyone must have known and everyone must be guilty. Between the 1930s and the 1980s, there have been many bishops in the dioceses. Some made decisions that enabled abusers, but some did not. The Church cannot punish the innocent. She must investigate to see who knew and willfully covered up or refused to report. They must be held accountable. The problem is, those are not the only bishops out there. For example:

• Bishops who sincerely believed the advice from psychiatrists that the priest should be moved.
• Bishops who succeeded the bishop who made the decision, not knowing about the problem.
• Bishops who assumed that their predecessors had properly dealt with any problems.
• Bishops who proactively try to root out problems when they become aware of them [@].

None of those groups of bishops covered up, and should not be punished as if they did. So when people say the bishops instead of some bishops, that response is unjust. No matter how vile the crime, the person who is not guilty is not guilty.

So, yes, call for justice. It’s your right under canon 212—so long as you do it reverently, and give religious submission of intellect and will to the teaching authority of the Church. But don’t call for vengeance or scapegoats. That’s incompatible with our faith.

Please keep these things in mind as the media reports (and probably misreports) on the Summit. Remember what they are attempting to do, and judge the summit on that. 

__________________

[†] While some states in the US and some nations like Australia are trying to violate the seal of Confession by forcing priests to reveal what was said, the Church did have a rule that if the victim confessed their part, the priest was supposed to tell them of their obligation to tell the bishop. Judging by the number of cases that took decades to come forward, this policy obviously didn’t work. The 1983 code eliminated the one month requirement for the victim:

[§] In the Pennsylvania report, the number of cases that were not past the statute of limitations was in the low single digits.

[@] After discovering he was misinformed about the Barrios case, Pope Francis was solidly in this camp.

On the Wrong Side of (Church) History

One of the conceits I see is the view that the individual Catholic is in the same place as Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher, while the Americans bishops are in the place of the English bishops at the time of Henry VIII breaking away from the Catholic Church [§]. This view holds that, in both cases, the bishops were cowardly and went along with an evil, rather than speak out against it. Therefore, they are in the “right” to reject them.

This view is both bad history and bad theology. We forget that, in every age where rejection of the Church arose, there was corruption that led people to think that rejection was justified. But the saints never accepted the idea that sin and corruption justified dissent.

(St. Francis of Assisi)

These individuals today justify disobedience to a Pope based on what they want the Church to be. The problem is: Saints, like More and Fisher, refused to use the bad behavior of a Pope as an excuse to disobey the authority of the Church. In other words, these modern critics (sincere or not) are closer to the those 16th century English who rejected the authority of Rome than they are to Sts. More and Fisher who said the authority of the Church rested with the Pope, even in bad times.

The Church today certainly has serious problems to deal with. We look at the abuse scandal and are shocked: At least some of the bishops seemed willing to sweep problems under the carpet. The 1917 Code of Canon Law seems to have been based on a naive assumption that all parties would be acting out of good will. Even if the numbers were statistically small, it was a problem that grew to cause great harm to the victims and their families and great mistrust towards the Church that is supposed to be Mother and Teacher. We also see the scandal of Catholic politicians who openly defy Church teaching on issues like abortion (some going so far as to express support for infanticide) and same sex “marriage,” and the response of some bishops seems to be “tsk.” People want to know why the wicked seem to get away with wrongdoing without repercussions [#]. People see this and argue we’re in an unprecedented crisis.

The problem with that reasoning is it forgets that the Church has had problems in every age. During the midst of each crisis, the Church looks like it is losing to the attacks against her. Sometimes, in the midst of these crises, bishops behave scandalously or ineffectually. During the midst of the 4th century, it looked like Arianism was going to win. During the 16th century, it looked like the Church would collapse under the dual attacks of corruption within and Protestantism without.

Reforms and opposing attacks were never instantaneous. Defeating Arianism took two ecumenical councils and a lot of struggle against a state that wanted them to win. Martin Luther began his work in about 1517. The Council of Trent didn’t begin until 1545, and wasn’t concluded until 1563. Implementation took over a hundred years.

I don’t say this to be complacent or triumphalistic. Yes, God protects His Church from teaching error. But we have our own role to play in defending and protecting the Church. What I am saying is that we must not assume that the Church is permanently broken and that we are therefore excused from the submission of intellect and will to the Church that Christ requires of us.

We can’t wait passively for God to send us saints to reform the Church. We’re called to be those saints. But we have to remember this: there was never a saint that refused obedience to the Church under the headship of the Pope. Regardless of the crises within the Church, even when they involved Popes behaving badly, the saints gave obedience to the Successor of Peter.  If we won’t do that, we’re not part of the solution...

...we’re part of the problem.

__________________

[§] This is not an article about Protestantism. It’s an article about people who inaccurately invoke the rise of Protestantism, equating it with the leadership of the Church today.

[#] The short answer is, canon 1398 is only aimed at people committing an act of abortion. But people do want to know actions are being taken.

Anticlerical Trojan Horses in Our Causes

Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts—Aeneid

Beware of Gifts bearing Greeks—Every person who riffed on Aeneid 

The Covington incident, among Catholics, has metastasized. It’s no longer the media or the “Black Hebrew Israelites” that are the target of outrage. Now it’s the bishop of Covington and other bishops who echoed him in denouncing the events before it turned out the video was out of context. It’s not my intention to pass judgment defending or attacking the bishops in this article. Bishops aren’t infallible of course. They can make errors in judgment. They can sin in doing so. But there’s a big difference between an error in judgment and maliciously rejecting their obligations to shepherd the Church. 

This concerns me because, while this incident is less than a week old, the rhetoric we’re hearing dates back to at least the pontificate of St. John Paul II. That rhetoric is of the “corrupt and cowardly bishops” which assumes that whatever mistake of judgment or sinful behavior that an individual bishop might commit is willfully and maliciously practiced by all the bishops. The argument is that, if they weren’t guilty of X (fill in your own blank here), they’d be denouncing the disliked position. 

People forget there is an anticlerical movement in the Church that seizes on any incident of bad judgment or scandal and uses it to bash the Pope and/or bishops. Whether the incident is a Bishop in Point A not barring a pro-abortion politician from the Eucharist (per Canon 915), a Bishop from Point B not disclosing cases of clergy abuse, or a Bishop from Point C saying something that turns out to be false, those critics with issues against the Church seize on these things to push their agenda—that the bishops they dislike are “proof” of the corruption of the Church as a whole. According to their views, the Church is in error unless they change to act as they prefer.

No, not all Catholics are members of this anticlerical mindset. It’s not wrong to want justice. We want politicians to be held accountable. We want the abuse scandals to stop. We wish certain bishops didn’t jump the gun on Covington. But, we need to beware of falling for the rhetoric of the Catholics alienated from  and hostile to the Church. If we look to the anticlerical sources when they attack wrongdoing in the Church, we might be swept up when these sources start attacking the authority of the Church.

The sources most loudly attacking the Bishop of Covington are notorious for their hostility to the Pope. Their mantra is that the Church is overrun by liberalism and modernism. They are using each incident that comes along as “proof” that justifies their dissent. They treat Incidents X, Y, and Z in locations A, B, and C as if all the evil was maliciously done by every diocese across the world simultaneously... except for the bishops they happen to agree with.

The danger is accepting the false narrative of the anticlerical movements. If one listens to their attacks too long, one might be tempted to accept that their dissent is justified. This is why I say beware of accepting the accounts of those at odds with the Church. You might happen to agree with them on disliking how a bishop handled something. But if one accepts their narrative uncritically, they might find themselves accepting the dissent that everyone is guilty, because there always was and always will always be sinners in the Church, and some of them will be priests or bishops.

Reflections for the Struggling

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

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

The Credibility and Proof Issues

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

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

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

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

The FUD Factor 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sin and Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s still “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”

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

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

Things Take Time 

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

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

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

We Must Recognize When We Lack Knowledge 

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

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

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

Conclusion: But I Can’t Trust Anymore!

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

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

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

Fault Lines in Finding Fault

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________

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

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

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