Thoughts on Freedom, Rights and Responsibilities

Introduction

The modern view of freedom tends to look at it as if any attempts to restrict what we want to do as a sin against our "rights."  Thus pornography and violent video games become "artistic" and any attempt to restrict access to these things become a "violation" of our rights.

The view that we have a "right" to do whatever we want is insanely self-destructive.  If freedom is to be understood as the "right" to do whatever we want without restrictions, it means we have no right to object to whatever we might view as harmful or repugnant because it "forces our views on another person."

Yet most people would recognize things like child pornography to be offensive and most people would see this as something which nobody has a "right" to.  (Those who say otherwise are not considered to have a reasonable opinion), which indicates that not all rights are "acceptable," and some restrictions are reasonable.

"Consenting Adults" is a phrase which Shows Restrictions

The term "consenting adults" for example is a term which shows there are restrictions on "freedoms."

1. The people involved must have reached the age of majority where they are considered competent to make responsible decisions and consider the consequences.
2. The people involved must freely consent.

Neither a willing minor nor an unwilling adult can take part in such an act.  The minor is not considered competent to be able to give informed consent and a person cannot be coerced to do something which they find offensive.

This means we have an absolute restriction: A person's freedom to do a thing is limited if the subject of the act is unable or unwilling to give consent.  Pedophilia then would be condemned because even if the child should consent, we do not consider the child to be able to give consent as required.

However, once we recognize this, we can challenge the principle of abortion.  If the unborn is a human person, he is unable to give consent to being aborted.  Thus, "Consenting Adults" is a clause which indicts abortion.

Defining Persons Selectively

Some say in response to this, "Well the fetus is not a person."  This leads us then to ask, "Who defines what is and is not a person?"

We have, in history, some examples of the government defining some as being less than human.  Pre-Civil War America considered African Americans as less than fully human and less capable than whites to reason and think clearly and thus could be enslaved.  Nazi Germany treated certain groups (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others) as subhuman who could be enslaved or exterminated and practiced the extermination of those who were considered mentally or physically unfit.

We can now look back on these times with disgust and with horror, recognizing that a government does not have a right to decree certain Homo sapiens as being less than human, and such a law cannot change what a person is.  A law which denies the personhood of the Homo sapiens goes against reality, against nature.

Human Rights and Gender

Of course there are some differences which are unavoidable.  All human persons are male or female regardless of race, age, belief or sexual preference.  Both are fully human and both have the rights of a human being, but the two are not the same.  Because both are fully human, one may not be treated as superior or inferior to the other on account of gender.

Gender is not inconsequential however.  Human biology impacts how each interacts.  The woman can give birth.  The man cannot.  This leaves us with two principles:

1. Differences in gender does not mean that this is all they can do.  (A woman is not limited to ONLY being a mother for example)
2. BUT since these functions are a part of nature, they cannot be ignored or suppressed.

Race and sexual preferences are not the same as gender.  Race does not change the fact that one is a Homo Sapiens.  Sexual preference does not change the fact of the actual gender.

Marriage, Gender, Race and Sexual Preference

Biologically, the sexual act involves the reproductive organs of two persons, one of each gender.  Acts which do not involve both the male and female reproductive organs is nothing more than sodomy.

Marriage, until the latest usurpations by government, has always been recognized as a family unit joined together by a man and a woman in a permanent sexual relationship which has at least the potential for future offspring and is formed together for that intent (If the man or woman is infertile is irrelevant.  Offspring is accepted as a natural part of the married life.  Infertility caused by age or infirmity cannot be helped but does not make the man any less a man or the woman any less a woman).

Restrictions on marriage due to race (or ethnicity) is an unnatural restriction.  A Homo sapiens male of one ethnicity and a Homo sapiens female of another ethnicity are able to form this permanent sexual union with the potential of having children.

However, sexual preference is NOT an unnatural restriction.  Between people of the same gender, there cannot be a sexual act, only sodomy.  There cannot be the potential for future offspring and such a union cannot be formed with acceptance of this motive.

Thus we can see it is a false analogy to compare the restriction of "gay marriage" with the unnatural laws forbidding people of different ethnicities to marry. The fact is, governments have no right to declare an ethnicity "less than human" and have no right to deny the difference between gender.  Marriage predates government as a basis for society and a government which attempts to change what marriage is through law goes outside of their authority.

Truth and Law

Aristotle defined Truth and Falsehood saying:

To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.

This is a principle which demonstrates that since a thing is what it is and cannot be what it is not, truth cannot be relative.  If a living being is a male, it is true to say this being is a male and false to say it is not a male.  If it is wrong to murder, we speak falsely if we say it is not wrong to murder.  We cannot abolish the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity.  Nor can we abolish biology.

That which IS cannot be declared IS NOT by a government.  That which IS NOT cannot be declared IS.  This is not a case of "forcing beliefs on another."  It is recognizing reality.  A government which attempts to pass laws contrary to what is true is in fact the one which is trying to impose their beliefs on another.

Legal Positivism

Legal Positivism is the concept that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies.  In other words, what man defines as law is the only source of law and truth, morality, natural law and other sources are irrelevant.  The problem is of course that whatever laws man invents on his own authority man can undo.  So if man creates the freedom of speech, he can undo that freedom.

This is why the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The rights which all men possess do not come from the government but from the Creator – which means they are rights which come from outside of us and cannot be taken away from us.  Quite frankly, legal positivism is inimical to the concept of rights and freedoms which our nation was founded on.

Ipse Dixit and Law

Yet legal positivism seems to be the philosophy of the American Government today. There is no longer a sense of understanding what IS true with government seeking to reflect that truth. Rather we have a government fiat declaring what we must do… with the only source of authority being the government saying so. Truth is no longer relevant. Rather we have coercion. Effectively the government says "We have decreed it so it is right. If you refuse to comply, we will take actions against you."

Ipse dixit is a claim which only has the fact that a person said it as its authority.  In America, we often rely on ipse dixit as the source of authority for a "right."  The Supreme Court said abortion is a "right."  Therefore it is.  However, when one realizes that the Supreme Court once ruled "Separate but Equal" was legally acceptable and accepted Internment camps for the Japanese, we can see that the Supreme Court is not a credible source of authority to justify a legally binding position as just or true.

The problem is, of course, that since governments can and do make unjust laws we can and must judge such laws based on a proper understanding of justice.  In speaking out against unjust laws which some favor, we are not attempting to "force views on others."  We are saying the government does wrong and goes beyond its authority when its laws go against the rights (with corresponding responsibilities) given us by our Creator.  If members of the public, if lawmakers believe that the Christian view of good and evil is wrong, that does not make it wrong simply by their declaration that they disagree with Christian belief.  Rather it falls to them to prove their point and not merely say "I disagree.  Therefore what I say goes."

Conclusion

Since we have recognized that certain restrictions do exist in terms of rights and on the other hand that the state does not have the authority to declare certain things as right we can see that the issue of right and wrong is not an issue of the government saying so, but rather we judge the acts of an individual or a government as right or wrong depending on how it matches up to the truth which we can know but cannot change.

As Christians, we believe that God is good and what is right is a reflection of His goodness and also is what is good for us by our very nature.  The government may decree something which goes against what God calls us to do, but we must repudiate what the government says which forces us to disobey God.  We believe that the government has no right to impose laws on us which force us to choose between God and our lives or livelihood.  The government which does so may appeal to force to accept compliance but we are obligated to obey God rather than men and continue to preach God's commands and message of salvation to the whole world.

We must preach in season and out of season, even if men hate us for speaking the truth of good and evil.  They may malign us, using slanders against us.  But we must recognize that God wants the salvation, not the destruction of sinners.  So we must continue to preach the truth to the world.

Thoughts on Freedom, Rights and Responsibilities

Introduction

The modern view of freedom tends to look at it as if any attempts to restrict what we want to do as a sin against our "rights."  Thus pornography and violent video games become "artistic" and any attempt to restrict access to these things become a "violation" of our rights.

The view that we have a "right" to do whatever we want is insanely self-destructive.  If freedom is to be understood as the "right" to do whatever we want without restrictions, it means we have no right to object to whatever we might view as harmful or repugnant because it "forces our views on another person."

Yet most people would recognize things like child pornography to be offensive and most people would see this as something which nobody has a "right" to.  (Those who say otherwise are not considered to have a reasonable opinion), which indicates that not all rights are "acceptable," and some restrictions are reasonable.

"Consenting Adults" is a phrase which Shows Restrictions

The term "consenting adults" for example is a term which shows there are restrictions on "freedoms."

1. The people involved must have reached the age of majority where they are considered competent to make responsible decisions and consider the consequences.
2. The people involved must freely consent.

Neither a willing minor nor an unwilling adult can take part in such an act.  The minor is not considered competent to be able to give informed consent and a person cannot be coerced to do something which they find offensive.

This means we have an absolute restriction: A person's freedom to do a thing is limited if the subject of the act is unable or unwilling to give consent.  Pedophilia then would be condemned because even if the child should consent, we do not consider the child to be able to give consent as required.

However, once we recognize this, we can challenge the principle of abortion.  If the unborn is a human person, he is unable to give consent to being aborted.  Thus, "Consenting Adults" is a clause which indicts abortion.

Defining Persons Selectively

Some say in response to this, "Well the fetus is not a person."  This leads us then to ask, "Who defines what is and is not a person?"

We have, in history, some examples of the government defining some as being less than human.  Pre-Civil War America considered African Americans as less than fully human and less capable than whites to reason and think clearly and thus could be enslaved.  Nazi Germany treated certain groups (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others) as subhuman who could be enslaved or exterminated and practiced the extermination of those who were considered mentally or physically unfit.

We can now look back on these times with disgust and with horror, recognizing that a government does not have a right to decree certain Homo sapiens as being less than human, and such a law cannot change what a person is.  A law which denies the personhood of the Homo sapiens goes against reality, against nature.

Human Rights and Gender

Of course there are some differences which are unavoidable.  All human persons are male or female regardless of race, age, belief or sexual preference.  Both are fully human and both have the rights of a human being, but the two are not the same.  Because both are fully human, one may not be treated as superior or inferior to the other on account of gender.

Gender is not inconsequential however.  Human biology impacts how each interacts.  The woman can give birth.  The man cannot.  This leaves us with two principles:

1. Differences in gender does not mean that this is all they can do.  (A woman is not limited to ONLY being a mother for example)
2. BUT since these functions are a part of nature, they cannot be ignored or suppressed.

Race and sexual preferences are not the same as gender.  Race does not change the fact that one is a Homo Sapiens.  Sexual preference does not change the fact of the actual gender.

Marriage, Gender, Race and Sexual Preference

Biologically, the sexual act involves the reproductive organs of two persons, one of each gender.  Acts which do not involve both the male and female reproductive organs is nothing more than sodomy.

Marriage, until the latest usurpations by government, has always been recognized as a family unit joined together by a man and a woman in a permanent sexual relationship which has at least the potential for future offspring and is formed together for that intent (If the man or woman is infertile is irrelevant.  Offspring is accepted as a natural part of the married life.  Infertility caused by age or infirmity cannot be helped but does not make the man any less a man or the woman any less a woman).

Restrictions on marriage due to race (or ethnicity) is an unnatural restriction.  A Homo sapiens male of one ethnicity and a Homo sapiens female of another ethnicity are able to form this permanent sexual union with the potential of having children.

However, sexual preference is NOT an unnatural restriction.  Between people of the same gender, there cannot be a sexual act, only sodomy.  There cannot be the potential for future offspring and such a union cannot be formed with acceptance of this motive.

Thus we can see it is a false analogy to compare the restriction of "gay marriage" with the unnatural laws forbidding people of different ethnicities to marry. The fact is, governments have no right to declare an ethnicity "less than human" and have no right to deny the difference between gender.  Marriage predates government as a basis for society and a government which attempts to change what marriage is through law goes outside of their authority.

Truth and Law

Aristotle defined Truth and Falsehood saying:

To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.

This is a principle which demonstrates that since a thing is what it is and cannot be what it is not, truth cannot be relative.  If a living being is a male, it is true to say this being is a male and false to say it is not a male.  If it is wrong to murder, we speak falsely if we say it is not wrong to murder.  We cannot abolish the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity.  Nor can we abolish biology.

That which IS cannot be declared IS NOT by a government.  That which IS NOT cannot be declared IS.  This is not a case of "forcing beliefs on another."  It is recognizing reality.  A government which attempts to pass laws contrary to what is true is in fact the one which is trying to impose their beliefs on another.

Legal Positivism

Legal Positivism is the concept that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies.  In other words, what man defines as law is the only source of law and truth, morality, natural law and other sources are irrelevant.  The problem is of course that whatever laws man invents on his own authority man can undo.  So if man creates the freedom of speech, he can undo that freedom.

This is why the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The rights which all men possess do not come from the government but from the Creator – which means they are rights which come from outside of us and cannot be taken away from us.  Quite frankly, legal positivism is inimical to the concept of rights and freedoms which our nation was founded on.

Ipse Dixit and Law

Yet legal positivism seems to be the philosophy of the American Government today. There is no longer a sense of understanding what IS true with government seeking to reflect that truth. Rather we have a government fiat declaring what we must do… with the only source of authority being the government saying so. Truth is no longer relevant. Rather we have coercion. Effectively the government says "We have decreed it so it is right. If you refuse to comply, we will take actions against you."

Ipse dixit is a claim which only has the fact that a person said it as its authority.  In America, we often rely on ipse dixit as the source of authority for a "right."  The Supreme Court said abortion is a "right."  Therefore it is.  However, when one realizes that the Supreme Court once ruled "Separate but Equal" was legally acceptable and accepted Internment camps for the Japanese, we can see that the Supreme Court is not a credible source of authority to justify a legally binding position as just or true.

The problem is, of course, that since governments can and do make unjust laws we can and must judge such laws based on a proper understanding of justice.  In speaking out against unjust laws which some favor, we are not attempting to "force views on others."  We are saying the government does wrong and goes beyond its authority when its laws go against the rights (with corresponding responsibilities) given us by our Creator.  If members of the public, if lawmakers believe that the Christian view of good and evil is wrong, that does not make it wrong simply by their declaration that they disagree with Christian belief.  Rather it falls to them to prove their point and not merely say "I disagree.  Therefore what I say goes."

Conclusion

Since we have recognized that certain restrictions do exist in terms of rights and on the other hand that the state does not have the authority to declare certain things as right we can see that the issue of right and wrong is not an issue of the government saying so, but rather we judge the acts of an individual or a government as right or wrong depending on how it matches up to the truth which we can know but cannot change.

As Christians, we believe that God is good and what is right is a reflection of His goodness and also is what is good for us by our very nature.  The government may decree something which goes against what God calls us to do, but we must repudiate what the government says which forces us to disobey God.  We believe that the government has no right to impose laws on us which force us to choose between God and our lives or livelihood.  The government which does so may appeal to force to accept compliance but we are obligated to obey God rather than men and continue to preach God's commands and message of salvation to the whole world.

We must preach in season and out of season, even if men hate us for speaking the truth of good and evil.  They may malign us, using slanders against us.  But we must recognize that God wants the salvation, not the destruction of sinners.  So we must continue to preach the truth to the world.

I Have to Say I am Inclined to Believe SOLT's Account

SOLT issued this statement.  Fr. Corapi responded with this statement.

With all due respect, I have to say I find SOLT's account more credible, while Fr. Corapi's statements on the issue have been frequently contradictory and self serving, saying some very uncharitable things as an ad hominem attack against those who investigate him.

He's just another dissenting priest at this point.  Really it would be best to stop giving him publicity – and to practice what I preach, this will be my last statement about him barring something serious being brought to the public.

Please pray for Fr. Corapi and all priests.

Comments Are Disabled.

I Have to Say I am Inclined to Believe SOLT's Account

SOLT issued this statement.  Fr. Corapi responded with this statement.

With all due respect, I have to say I find SOLT's account more credible, while Fr. Corapi's statements on the issue have been frequently contradictory and self serving, saying some very uncharitable things as an ad hominem attack against those who investigate him.

He's just another dissenting priest at this point.  Really it would be best to stop giving him publicity – and to practice what I preach, this will be my last statement about him barring something serious being brought to the public.

Please pray for Fr. Corapi and all priests.

Comments Are Disabled.

If We Do Not, Why Should They? Thoughts on Accusations Against the New York Bishops

Preliminary Note

I quote one blogger in this article.  I do not write this article as a blasting of the author.  Rather, I found his statement to be a concise and articulate stating of what is troubling many frustrated Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church and are feeling like they're being left out on a limb.  A person who sees this article as an act of judgment of any specific person misunderstands what I am trying to say.

Nor is this article a defense of Cuomo and the New York Legislature.  What they did was reprehensible and must be opposed.

Also, this article in no way advocates a "seamless garment" seeking to say that this issue isn't important or that we need to put equal emphasis on Social Issue [X].

We in the Church need to defend the moral teachings of the Church and, if necessary, admonish the sinner.  However, in speaking out on this topic we are obligated to be charitable and recognize the bishops are on our side, not the other side, even if we would prefer a more direct action.

Please keep the above in mind when tempted to send in an angry response.

Introduction

With the aftermath of the legalization of "gay marriage" in New York, the scapegoating seems to be in full swing.  During the months leading up to this travesty, I was fully aware that the bishops of New York were opposed to the legalization of "gay marriage."  Yet now that the bill became "law," there are many who place the blame on the bishops that this did happen to begin with.

Yes, the bishops of New York are being blamed for failing to stop the bill from becoming law, and as this goes it becomes less charitable as the idea passes from blogger to commentator. 

The Internet being what it is, a blogger can say [X] which may actually be quite reasonable.  However, some comments become more radical and less charitable in repeating what is said, going from the blogger's "I'm disappointed with how the thing turned out," to the commentator's "The bishops are a bunch of incompetent cowards."  The former can be considered charitable.  The latter certainly cannot.

The point is, the charity towards the shepherds of the Church is greatly diminishing, and all of us are called to consider what we are saying and whether it is just to do so.  Are we engaging in a respectful making known of our concerns to a successor to the Apostles?  Or are we behaving in an unjust fashion?

Considering One Argument Against the Bishops

One blogger (whom I follow and mostly like what he has to say) writes, "The Bishops could not be that serious about stopping gay marriage or else they would do something serious about it."  It's a comment I find symptomatic of the problem.  Such a statement strikes me as typical of the dissatisfaction and frustration.   What he calls for is the bishops to bring sanctions against the politicians who cause this scandal

Now I understand and can sympathize with this frustration.  There are many politicians out there who publically act in contradiction to what their Church teaches.  At least JFK said that if he felt there was a conflict between his faith and his duty as president, he would resign.  Catholic politicians today seem to have no problem ignoring their faith if there is such a conflict, and it is a real problem which needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately the quote above indicates a problem we have within the Church, and that is an indication that the bishops are to be deemed acceptable only to the extent that they act as we would like.  The general sense of the argument (I've heard it often over the years) above can be restated as:

1. If the Bishops were [serious about stopping Gay Marriage], they would [inflict sanctions] (If [A] then [B])
2. The Bishops did not [inflict sanctions] (Not [B])
3. Therefore the bishops are not [serious about stopping gay marriage]. (Therefore Not [A])

This is a logically valid form called modus tollens.   Since the form is correct, we need to look at the premises to see if they are true or false.  Valid is not the same as true.  If the form is valid, but the premises are false, the conclusion is not proven to be true.  So how can the premises be false in this case?  The answer is, if there are more valid options than considered, then it can be said that [B] is not a condition of [A].

If [B] is not the only valid option, or if the bishops were serious but ineffective about stopping "gay marriage" then the above claim is not proven to be true.

How This Argument Can Be Used In Error

So let's see how this form can be used in other contexts (please note, I am not saying the examples below are the equivalent to the issue of the New York bishops.  Rather I am pointing out examples where [A] is wrongly linked to [B]):

1. If Pope Pius XII was [serious about helping the Jews], he would have [excommunicated Hitler].
2. Pope Pius XII did not [excommunicate Hitler].
3. Therefore Pope Pius XII was not [serious about helping the Jews].

This argument is rejected by those who know what Pope Pius XII actually did.  Indeed he was concerned that acts which would not only not save the Jews [Hitler was openly contemptuous of the Church] but would incite Hitler to target even more Jews.  One can see in this case that [A] is not dependent on [B].

Or:

1. If the Catholics actually [accepted the Bible], they would [accept Sola Scriptura].
2. Catholics do not [accept Sola Scriptura]
3. Therefore Catholics do not actually [accept the Bible].

The fact that we reject the idea of Sola Scriptura does not mean we reject the Bible.  Rather, we think Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine of the 16th century never held by the early Christians.  This argument assumes as true something which needs to be proven.

Or:

1. If God [exists] there would be [no evil] (If [A] then [B])
2. There is not [No Evil] (Not [B])
3. Therefore God does not [Exist] (Therefore Not [A])

No Christian would accept this.  The belief of free will means man can refuse to follow God, and if he refuses to be obedient to God, he can bring harm to others.

The point is, these examples say "No" to the question: Does [B] follow from [A]?  Thus the conclusion is not proven.  Therefore, before we can accept this argument (that the bishops are not serious), it must be demonstrated that [causing sanctions] is necessary to [be serious about protecting marriage] and not assumed to be true.

The Unspoken Assumption

What troubles me is this sort of a statement is an act of judgment, treating the bishop not as a successor of the Apostles but as a coin in a vending machine.  We put in a coin and get the desired result: "If the bishop had only done [X] we wouldn't be in this mess!"

So here's my problem.  If we who profess to be faithful Catholics cannot be respectful to the office of the bishop, how can we even begin to expect those who are public dissenters to be respectful to the office of the bishop when he seeks to teach on faith and morals?

Now I do believe that enforcing Canon 915 is something we should do.  I believe that encouraging the bishop to enforce canon 915 is a good thing to do.  Doing so is not being disrespectful to the bishops.  Canon 212 does recognize the laity making their needs known in a respectful (the key word) manner.

However, there is a difference between letting the bishop know, "We will be fully behind you if you carry out your mission and enforce the doctrine of the Church" and being uncharitable in making one's needs known

That difference is the difference of respect for the office of the bishop and the person who holds it vs. the disrespectful attitude towards the office and person of the bishop which seems to show up every time the State acts in defiance of the Church. 

The Challenge

So let me ask my fellow Catholics, who do their best to be faithful to the Magisterium, to consider some questions.  Please note, I am not asking these questions from a position of superiority ("I am better than you because I do these things and you do not") but rather as questions which convict me when I read the Scriptures and Patristics in comparison to what I feel in my heart when I read the news.  I know the answer I should give, but, mea culpa, sometimes that comes after the first act of anger.

1. Do we love your bishop as a fellow brother as well as the shepherd over us?  Or do you judge him?
2. Do we pray for him?  Or do we condemn him?
3. Do we support him?  Or is our support conditional on whether he follows our agenda?
4. Do we want those people acting against Church teaching  (Obama, Cuomo etc.) to be saved?  Or condemned?
5. Do we judge other Catholics for falling away from Church on sexual issues while rejecting the Church on other issues (Social Justice)?

I am not arguing for some "Seamless Garment" saying these issues are not important unless we first commit to [X], [Y] and [Z].  I am saying that if we want others to follow the authority of the Church, we need to practice what we preach and follow such authority ourselves.  Otherwise we make a poor example to whom the dissenter can say, "Why should I listen to you?  You don't  respect the authority of the bishop either?

Nor do I say if we treat the bishop with respect, the dissenters will too (free will means a person can choose to disobey Christ's Church).  Rather I say, if we think obedience to the bishop is so important for the dissenters to comply with, then let us practice what we preach.

If We Do Not, Why Should They? Thoughts on Accusations Against the New York Bishops

Preliminary Note

I quote one blogger in this article.  I do not write this article as a blasting of the author.  Rather, I found his statement to be a concise and articulate stating of what is troubling many frustrated Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church and are feeling like they're being left out on a limb.  A person who sees this article as an act of judgment of any specific person misunderstands what I am trying to say.

Nor is this article a defense of Cuomo and the New York Legislature.  What they did was reprehensible and must be opposed.

Also, this article in no way advocates a "seamless garment" seeking to say that this issue isn't important or that we need to put equal emphasis on Social Issue [X].

We in the Church need to defend the moral teachings of the Church and, if necessary, admonish the sinner.  However, in speaking out on this topic we are obligated to be charitable and recognize the bishops are on our side, not the other side, even if we would prefer a more direct action.

Please keep the above in mind when tempted to send in an angry response.

Introduction

With the aftermath of the legalization of "gay marriage" in New York, the scapegoating seems to be in full swing.  During the months leading up to this travesty, I was fully aware that the bishops of New York were opposed to the legalization of "gay marriage."  Yet now that the bill became "law," there are many who place the blame on the bishops that this did happen to begin with.

Yes, the bishops of New York are being blamed for failing to stop the bill from becoming law, and as this goes it becomes less charitable as the idea passes from blogger to commentator. 

The Internet being what it is, a blogger can say [X] which may actually be quite reasonable.  However, some comments become more radical and less charitable in repeating what is said, going from the blogger's "I'm disappointed with how the thing turned out," to the commentator's "The bishops are a bunch of incompetent cowards."  The former can be considered charitable.  The latter certainly cannot.

The point is, the charity towards the shepherds of the Church is greatly diminishing, and all of us are called to consider what we are saying and whether it is just to do so.  Are we engaging in a respectful making known of our concerns to a successor to the Apostles?  Or are we behaving in an unjust fashion?

Considering One Argument Against the Bishops

One blogger (whom I follow and mostly like what he has to say) writes, "The Bishops could not be that serious about stopping gay marriage or else they would do something serious about it."  It's a comment I find symptomatic of the problem.  Such a statement strikes me as typical of the dissatisfaction and frustration.   What he calls for is the bishops to bring sanctions against the politicians who cause this scandal

Now I understand and can sympathize with this frustration.  There are many politicians out there who publically act in contradiction to what their Church teaches.  At least JFK said that if he felt there was a conflict between his faith and his duty as president, he would resign.  Catholic politicians today seem to have no problem ignoring their faith if there is such a conflict, and it is a real problem which needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately the quote above indicates a problem we have within the Church, and that is an indication that the bishops are to be deemed acceptable only to the extent that they act as we would like.  The general sense of the argument (I've heard it often over the years) above can be restated as:

1. If the Bishops were [serious about stopping Gay Marriage], they would [inflict sanctions] (If [A] then [B])
2. The Bishops did not [inflict sanctions] (Not [B])
3. Therefore the bishops are not [serious about stopping gay marriage]. (Therefore Not [A])

This is a logically valid form called modus tollens.   Since the form is correct, we need to look at the premises to see if they are true or false.  Valid is not the same as true.  If the form is valid, but the premises are false, the conclusion is not proven to be true.  So how can the premises be false in this case?  The answer is, if there are more valid options than considered, then it can be said that [B] is not a condition of [A].

If [B] is not the only valid option, or if the bishops were serious but ineffective about stopping "gay marriage" then the above claim is not proven to be true.

How This Argument Can Be Used In Error

So let's see how this form can be used in other contexts (please note, I am not saying the examples below are the equivalent to the issue of the New York bishops.  Rather I am pointing out examples where [A] is wrongly linked to [B]):

1. If Pope Pius XII was [serious about helping the Jews], he would have [excommunicated Hitler].
2. Pope Pius XII did not [excommunicate Hitler].
3. Therefore Pope Pius XII was not [serious about helping the Jews].

This argument is rejected by those who know what Pope Pius XII actually did.  Indeed he was concerned that acts which would not only not save the Jews [Hitler was openly contemptuous of the Church] but would incite Hitler to target even more Jews.  One can see in this case that [A] is not dependent on [B].

Or:

1. If the Catholics actually [accepted the Bible], they would [accept Sola Scriptura].
2. Catholics do not [accept Sola Scriptura]
3. Therefore Catholics do not actually [accept the Bible].

The fact that we reject the idea of Sola Scriptura does not mean we reject the Bible.  Rather, we think Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine of the 16th century never held by the early Christians.  This argument assumes as true something which needs to be proven.

Or:

1. If God [exists] there would be [no evil] (If [A] then [B])
2. There is not [No Evil] (Not [B])
3. Therefore God does not [Exist] (Therefore Not [A])

No Christian would accept this.  The belief of free will means man can refuse to follow God, and if he refuses to be obedient to God, he can bring harm to others.

The point is, these examples say "No" to the question: Does [B] follow from [A]?  Thus the conclusion is not proven.  Therefore, before we can accept this argument (that the bishops are not serious), it must be demonstrated that [causing sanctions] is necessary to [be serious about protecting marriage] and not assumed to be true.

The Unspoken Assumption

What troubles me is this sort of a statement is an act of judgment, treating the bishop not as a successor of the Apostles but as a coin in a vending machine.  We put in a coin and get the desired result: "If the bishop had only done [X] we wouldn't be in this mess!"

So here's my problem.  If we who profess to be faithful Catholics cannot be respectful to the office of the bishop, how can we even begin to expect those who are public dissenters to be respectful to the office of the bishop when he seeks to teach on faith and morals?

Now I do believe that enforcing Canon 915 is something we should do.  I believe that encouraging the bishop to enforce canon 915 is a good thing to do.  Doing so is not being disrespectful to the bishops.  Canon 212 does recognize the laity making their needs known in a respectful (the key word) manner.

However, there is a difference between letting the bishop know, "We will be fully behind you if you carry out your mission and enforce the doctrine of the Church" and being uncharitable in making one's needs known

That difference is the difference of respect for the office of the bishop and the person who holds it vs. the disrespectful attitude towards the office and person of the bishop which seems to show up every time the State acts in defiance of the Church. 

The Challenge

So let me ask my fellow Catholics, who do their best to be faithful to the Magisterium, to consider some questions.  Please note, I am not asking these questions from a position of superiority ("I am better than you because I do these things and you do not") but rather as questions which convict me when I read the Scriptures and Patristics in comparison to what I feel in my heart when I read the news.  I know the answer I should give, but, mea culpa, sometimes that comes after the first act of anger.

1. Do we love your bishop as a fellow brother as well as the shepherd over us?  Or do you judge him?
2. Do we pray for him?  Or do we condemn him?
3. Do we support him?  Or is our support conditional on whether he follows our agenda?
4. Do we want those people acting against Church teaching  (Obama, Cuomo etc.) to be saved?  Or condemned?
5. Do we judge other Catholics for falling away from Church on sexual issues while rejecting the Church on other issues (Social Justice)?

I am not arguing for some "Seamless Garment" saying these issues are not important unless we first commit to [X], [Y] and [Z].  I am saying that if we want others to follow the authority of the Church, we need to practice what we preach and follow such authority ourselves.  Otherwise we make a poor example to whom the dissenter can say, "Why should I listen to you?  You don't  respect the authority of the bishop either?

Nor do I say if we treat the bishop with respect, the dissenters will too (free will means a person can choose to disobey Christ's Church).  Rather I say, if we think obedience to the bishop is so important for the dissenters to comply with, then let us practice what we preach.

Even So...

In light of my last post about the troublesome anti-bishop mentality in America, some may be wondering about my thoughts on the bishops concerning the fiasco in New York where Catholic Andrew Cuomo has enthusiastically signed gay "marriage" into law (I hope to write more directly on this topic later).  Edward Peters, for example makes a good case for canonical action against Governor Cuomo.  It is certainly a serious public act in defiance of what the Church believes is right, and indeed, I do hope that the bishops of New York will take action.

However, the question is: what if they do not?  Would this not prove the point of those who accuse the bishops of corruption?  Well, no.  Moreover, that is the wrong question to ask.  This is not a case where the bishops of the United States can take collective action.  Nor can the bishops of New York State as a whole take action.  If you read the documents of the Council of Trent (among others) you can see that the bishop in Diocese [A] does not have the authority to act against a person in Diocese [B].

Ultimately it is the bishop of Albany who has the authority to take action – even though we might wish Archbishop Dolan had jurisdiction (We've had a similar issue a generation ago with Mario Cuomo not being under the jurisdiction of Cardinal O'Connor).  So we should be praying for Bishop Hubbard to make a wise decision concerning this issue of public scandal.

But there is always the question of "what if he doesn't?"

Well, that would be unfortunate indeed, though I believe my points I made in the previous article (linked above) would hold to be valid.  We would need to be careful that we have all the facts before issuing any objection and not assume that because no public action took place that no action took place.

This isn't an argument to justify inaction.  I believe that under canon 212, we do have the right and the responsibility to make our concerns known in the face of such a scandal.

A bishop ultimately has to render an account to God for the way he shepherds his diocese, and an affront like this is surely something which requires shepherding.  However, even if a bishop fails to act as he should it is not just to accuse all bishops for the inaction of one.

So I would say faithful Catholics should be prayerful and respectful, recognizing that just because action does not take place immediately or publicly does not mean "the bishops" as a whole are corrupt.  As for Bishop Hubbard of Albany, our first thought to be to pray for him to do the right thing in light of the grave scandal and the salvation of Governor Cuomo's soul,  and not to whip out a stopwatch and say after a short period, "he did nothing… that proves the bishops are corrupt!"

Even So...

In light of my last post about the troublesome anti-bishop mentality in America, some may be wondering about my thoughts on the bishops concerning the fiasco in New York where Catholic Andrew Cuomo has enthusiastically signed gay "marriage" into law (I hope to write more directly on this topic later).  Edward Peters, for example makes a good case for canonical action against Governor Cuomo.  It is certainly a serious public act in defiance of what the Church believes is right, and indeed, I do hope that the bishops of New York will take action.

However, the question is: what if they do not?  Would this not prove the point of those who accuse the bishops of corruption?  Well, no.  Moreover, that is the wrong question to ask.  This is not a case where the bishops of the United States can take collective action.  Nor can the bishops of New York State as a whole take action.  If you read the documents of the Council of Trent (among others) you can see that the bishop in Diocese [A] does not have the authority to act against a person in Diocese [B].

Ultimately it is the bishop of Albany who has the authority to take action – even though we might wish Archbishop Dolan had jurisdiction (We've had a similar issue a generation ago with Mario Cuomo not being under the jurisdiction of Cardinal O'Connor).  So we should be praying for Bishop Hubbard to make a wise decision concerning this issue of public scandal.

But there is always the question of "what if he doesn't?"

Well, that would be unfortunate indeed, though I believe my points I made in the previous article (linked above) would hold to be valid.  We would need to be careful that we have all the facts before issuing any objection and not assume that because no public action took place that no action took place.

This isn't an argument to justify inaction.  I believe that under canon 212, we do have the right and the responsibility to make our concerns known in the face of such a scandal.

A bishop ultimately has to render an account to God for the way he shepherds his diocese, and an affront like this is surely something which requires shepherding.  However, even if a bishop fails to act as he should it is not just to accuse all bishops for the inaction of one.

So I would say faithful Catholics should be prayerful and respectful, recognizing that just because action does not take place immediately or publicly does not mean "the bishops" as a whole are corrupt.  As for Bishop Hubbard of Albany, our first thought to be to pray for him to do the right thing in light of the grave scandal and the salvation of Governor Cuomo's soul,  and not to whip out a stopwatch and say after a short period, "he did nothing… that proves the bishops are corrupt!"

With Great Concern: Thoughts on the Anti-Bishop Mentality among Some of the Faithful

Introduction

The recent civil war on the internet which has erupted among Catholics brings to my attention that it is actually a symptom of a deeper problem, and that is the growing issue of division among some Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church.

^12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to ^Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Kephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

^{13 }Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:12-13)

One mindset seems to believe there is widespread corruption among the hierarchy of the Church, and very few can be trusted to do the right thing. This isn’t merely an attitude of arrogance – the “do what I think is right or you’re a modernist heretic” mindset. There are also those individuals who do look at the remaining dissention within the Church, who rightly recognizes that it is a bad thing, and think it must have a cause among those who lead the Church. They then think that if the bishops were doing their jobs rightly, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.

What disturbs me most about this mindset is that it seems to be a spirit of dissention which confuses the lawful authority of the office of the bishop with the individual who holds it. If the individual falls into sin, makes a bad choice or even makes a different choice from the one we would personally like, it seems that there are some who would dare to say we can ignore their authority as a bishop.

A Personal Experience

I recall encountering this mindset for the first time in the lead up to the 1996 elections when Pat Robertson was going about with his Christian Coalition and trying to form a group for Catholics (I think it was called Catholic Alliance). One bishop, citing canon law, made a statement reminding the faithful that no group could call itself Catholic without the approval of the Church, and this group had not even sought approval from the Church.

I recall bringing this up at the campus (I was doing my Masters degree at this time) group Human Life Concerns where certain members were trying to encourage all of us to join Catholic Alliance. In response, one of the members made a dismissive response saying the bishop in question was “totally liberal” and we didn’t have to listen to him.

I was deeply troubled by this because it was a bishop who was exercising his office to clarify what the Church position was (not his own opinion) on this subject and he was treated dismissively because this individual had a low opinion of this bishop and “the bishops” in general.

A Fallacy of Bifurcation

An underlying problem with the mindset is the dividing the issue into two areas – but the two areas are not mutually exclusive. This is the mindset of either [A] or [B]. Either we can side with the person in defiance of the bishop, or we can side with “corruption within the Church.” The reason this is a false argument is that it is possible that one can say neither [A] nor [B]. I can for example deplore the dissent among certain priests, religious and laity and also reject the claim that we can disobey a bishop and still be faithful Catholics.

The Bishops are Successors to the Apostles

The problem I have with the antipathy towards the bishops by those who claim that they are faithful to the Church is that it ignores a rather crucial part of the Church teaching, and that is the bishops are not employees of the Church but are successors to the Apostles. Vatican II points out:

27. Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them (58*) by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant.(169) This power, which they personally exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate. (Lumen Gentium)

So, when the bishop acts as the head of his flock, he is to be heeded by those under his care. That is inescapable. Refusal to obey the rightful authority of a bishop means one is dissenting against what they dislike. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, writes:

Chapter VIII.—Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter IX.—Honour the Bishop.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.

—St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans

From the earliest days of the Church, the importance of the Bishop was recognized. Acting in harmony with the bishop is seen as good. Acting against the bishop or without him is deemed wrong. This is something to keep in mind. Do we carry on the practice of faithful Catholics when we reject the authority of bishops we dislike or disagree with?

Rights and Duties of the Faithful

At this point some may accuse me of saying that all the faithful should shut up and mindlessly obey the Church. I would in fact reject this accusation. The Church does indeed speak on what we are to do in terms of dealing with difficult situations.

Canon Law brings out that we the faithful of the Church have rights and duties in terms of our relation to the Church. We are to obey the lawful authority of the Church, but have the right and at times the obligation to make known our needs to those entrusted with our spiritual health.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. (Code of Canon Law)

So the Church does not say “Shut up and take it,” in response to problems within the Church. However, we are to obey the pastors who act in the role of ruling the Church, and when we must make known our needs and concerns we must do so in a manner which is reverent and dignified.

Thoughts on Galatians Chapter 2

Members of the SSPX I have encountered love to cite Galatians 2: 11-15 to justify their disobedience to the Pope. They claim they are like St. Paul withstanding St. Peter to his face on an issue where they claim the Pope is wrong. Others use this to justify opposing their bishop, claiming they are following the example of St. Paul. There is a problem with this however.

Let’s look at the passage from Galatians 2:

¹¹ And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

¹² For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.

¹³ And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

¹⁴ But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

St. Paul is calling to mind a flaw in St. Peter’s behavior, not his teaching. His personal actions warrant a rebuke. St. Paul is not disobeying St. Peter because this is not an issue of obedience.  So it cannot be used to argue that we can defy the bishop when he acts as head of his diocese.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Correcting a Superior

St. Thomas Aquinas brings forth an excellent exposition of what the correction of a superior entails:

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church. (Summa Theologica II-IIa Question 33: Article 4)

The act of correcting a superior requires charity, gentleness and respect. Angry, rude and disrespectful accusations are not a part of such a charitable correction. St. Paul demonstrates the attitude which St. Thomas Aquinas discusses. He is not rude and abusive. He brings the facts of where Peter goes wrong in his personal behavior, but does so respectfully.

Recognizing that Our Way is not the Only Way

Another problem to be aware of is that just because we have a preferred solution to a problem does not mean only our situation is right. I may personally prefer that our bishops punt the dissenters out so hard that they bounce on landing. However I need to recognize that, because the Church acts with the mentality of saving those who are in dissent from her, the Bishop may have a valid reason for undertaking a different action than we do.

The Need to Recognize the Possibility of Personal Error and Partisanship

We must also recognize that before judging a bishop we must be certain we have all the relative facts. If our understanding is flawed, our conclusion will be flawed as well. It probably reflects our original sin, that it is easier for us to think someone else errs than that we err.

Likewise we need to recognize that a similarity between a Catholic position and a political party plank does not mean that the bishops are “liberal” or “conservative.” We need to realize the one who is partisan may be us.

If we do not realize this, we run the risk of dogmatizing our personal beliefs and mistaking them for the beliefs of the Church.

You Cannot Draw a Universal Conclusion from a Limited Sample

Another problem is the tendency to argue from the bad decisions of certain bishops that the whole is corrupt. Now there are bishops who do wrong and do disagree with the teaching of the Church. However, it does not follow that all bishops are bad because of this.

To have a valid argument which makes a universal conclusion, one needs a universal premise (All [A] is [B]). If you don’t have this Universal premise, you cannot draw a universal conclusion. To make an argument about the whole, you have two options.

You can either say:

1. All [A] is [B]
2. All [B] is [C]
3. Therefore All [A] is [C]

Or you can say:

1. All [A] is [B]
2. No [B] is [C]
3. Therefore No [A] is [C]

Any other valid form of argument can only speak of “Some,” not the whole. Even that requires one universal statement (Either “All [A] is [B]” or “No [A] is [B]”) to go with the limited statement (“Some [B] is [C]” or “Some [B] is not [C]”) to make a valid conclusion (Therefore some [A] is [C] or Therefore some [A] is NOT [C]).

Otherwise, the argument cannot be said prove its point.

So to apply this to the case of the Church, if one wants to say that ALL Bishops are bad, or to say NO bishops are good, that person has to establish universal premises and show that the premises are true

Begging the Question

This brings us to our next error to consider. This is the failure to establish that a claim is true, but merely assume to be proven what needs proof:

1. The Church is falling into error by doing [X].
2. If the Church wasn’t in error, she wouldn’t do [X]

We call this Begging the Question because we can ask, “On what basis do you say [X] is wrong?” Or “On what basis do you say the Church is doing [X]?” If [X] isn’t wrong or if the Church isn’t doing [X], then the argument doesn’t work.

If someone tells me “All Bishops are corrupt,” I have a right to ask that be proven. I don’t have to take your word for it. We can look at the Church teaching on [A] and see if it is being violated by the bishop (as opposed to being handled differently than we would like).

I suspect this is why so many “appeals to Rome” against some Bishop fail. The allegation is made, the Church looks at it and recognizes that the accuser does not realize their allegation does not establish real wrongdoing.

Confusing Partisanship with Doctrine

We also need to be aware that just because a bishop formulates a response for his diocese which seems to come close to a political plank for one of our parties does not mean the bishop is acting out of sympathies for one party or another. The Catholic Church opposes abortion. Not because the Catholic Church is “right wing” but because the Catholic Church believes that the unborn children are human beings. The Catholic Church does not oppose the anti-immigrant laws in America because they favor the Democratic Party, but because they believe these actions go against the obligation to treat each person as a child of God.

We have to judge the political parties by Church teaching, not Church teachings by political ideology. We also have to recognize that the rejection of one extreme does not mean the acceptance of the other extreme. For example, the rejection of pure socialism is not an endorsement of laissez faire capitalism, and the rejection of laissez faire capitalism is not an endorsement of socialism.

Overlooking our own lack of knowledge and potential to err

One thing I’ve learned over the years is that there are many who assume the Church teaches a thing when she does not, or does not realize that their own views are far stricter (or far more lenient) than the Church teaching.

I’ve personally experienced people hear me say [A], then reason “If [A] then [X]. If [X] then [C]. Therefore he supports [C].” I then get accused of holding [C] when I actually reject [C]. The false accusation is based on the assumption that premise [X] follows from holding [A] without checking to see if I actually agree that [X] follows from [A].

This also happens in the Church. For example some argue:

• If a bad priest appears to unchecked in a diocese, it means the bishop is doing nothing.
• If the bishop is doing nothing, it means he sympathizes with the bad priest.
• Therefore the bishop is corrupt/heretical etc.

The problem is, just because we don’t see a response does not mean an absence of response. If we do not know how the proper procedure, if we are focused on punishment while the bishop is focused on redemption, then it is possible that we can judge a bishop out of ignorance.

So the question is first, do we know all the facts of the case? If we do not, educating ourselves is necessary.

Conclusion

The anti-magisterial attitude among certain Catholics is a danger which needs to be recognized. Yes some bishops do wrong and need to be corrected. However, others do not do wrong but are accused of being wrong because the individual thinks a case should be handled differently. Also the whole is often judged on the failings of a few.

I don’t feel we need to justify a bishop who does wrong through choice or through a mistaken judgment. However, we do need to realize that it is entirely unjust to judge the whole on the basis of what we think is correct, without verifying that our knowledge is correct.

Nobody wants to admit their knowledge is lacking on a topic important to them. For those who seek to be faithful Catholics, having to admit not knowing is difficult — it’s as if we feel we are admitting we are less faithful than we thought. But that simply isn’t true.

Once we realize we don’t know a thing, we can begin to learn. However, so long as we stubbornly cling to thinking we know all there is to know about a situation, the result is clinging to error. It is dangerous for a person to assume he is not blind and therefore is allowed to judge.

^40 Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”

^41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains. (John 9:40-41)

With Great Concern: Thoughts on the Anti-Bishop Mentality among Some of the Faithful

Introduction

The recent civil war on the internet which has erupted among Catholics brings to my attention that it is actually a symptom of a deeper problem, and that is the growing issue of division among some Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church.

^12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to ^Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Kephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

^{13 }Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:12-13)

One mindset seems to believe there is widespread corruption among the hierarchy of the Church, and very few can be trusted to do the right thing. This isn’t merely an attitude of arrogance – the “do what I think is right or you’re a modernist heretic” mindset. There are also those individuals who do look at the remaining dissention within the Church, who rightly recognizes that it is a bad thing, and think it must have a cause among those who lead the Church. They then think that if the bishops were doing their jobs rightly, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.

What disturbs me most about this mindset is that it seems to be a spirit of dissention which confuses the lawful authority of the office of the bishop with the individual who holds it. If the individual falls into sin, makes a bad choice or even makes a different choice from the one we would personally like, it seems that there are some who would dare to say we can ignore their authority as a bishop.

A Personal Experience

I recall encountering this mindset for the first time in the lead up to the 1996 elections when Pat Robertson was going about with his Christian Coalition and trying to form a group for Catholics (I think it was called Catholic Alliance). One bishop, citing canon law, made a statement reminding the faithful that no group could call itself Catholic without the approval of the Church, and this group had not even sought approval from the Church.

I recall bringing this up at the campus (I was doing my Masters degree at this time) group Human Life Concerns where certain members were trying to encourage all of us to join Catholic Alliance. In response, one of the members made a dismissive response saying the bishop in question was “totally liberal” and we didn’t have to listen to him.

I was deeply troubled by this because it was a bishop who was exercising his office to clarify what the Church position was (not his own opinion) on this subject and he was treated dismissively because this individual had a low opinion of this bishop and “the bishops” in general.

A Fallacy of Bifurcation

An underlying problem with the mindset is the dividing the issue into two areas – but the two areas are not mutually exclusive. This is the mindset of either [A] or [B]. Either we can side with the person in defiance of the bishop, or we can side with “corruption within the Church.” The reason this is a false argument is that it is possible that one can say neither [A] nor [B]. I can for example deplore the dissent among certain priests, religious and laity and also reject the claim that we can disobey a bishop and still be faithful Catholics.

The Bishops are Successors to the Apostles

The problem I have with the antipathy towards the bishops by those who claim that they are faithful to the Church is that it ignores a rather crucial part of the Church teaching, and that is the bishops are not employees of the Church but are successors to the Apostles. Vatican II points out:

27. Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them (58*) by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant.(169) This power, which they personally exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate. (Lumen Gentium)

So, when the bishop acts as the head of his flock, he is to be heeded by those under his care. That is inescapable. Refusal to obey the rightful authority of a bishop means one is dissenting against what they dislike. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, writes:

Chapter VIII.—Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter IX.—Honour the Bishop.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.

—St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans

From the earliest days of the Church, the importance of the Bishop was recognized. Acting in harmony with the bishop is seen as good. Acting against the bishop or without him is deemed wrong. This is something to keep in mind. Do we carry on the practice of faithful Catholics when we reject the authority of bishops we dislike or disagree with?

Rights and Duties of the Faithful

At this point some may accuse me of saying that all the faithful should shut up and mindlessly obey the Church. I would in fact reject this accusation. The Church does indeed speak on what we are to do in terms of dealing with difficult situations.

Canon Law brings out that we the faithful of the Church have rights and duties in terms of our relation to the Church. We are to obey the lawful authority of the Church, but have the right and at times the obligation to make known our needs to those entrusted with our spiritual health.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. (Code of Canon Law)

So the Church does not say “Shut up and take it,” in response to problems within the Church. However, we are to obey the pastors who act in the role of ruling the Church, and when we must make known our needs and concerns we must do so in a manner which is reverent and dignified.

Thoughts on Galatians Chapter 2

Members of the SSPX I have encountered love to cite Galatians 2: 11-15 to justify their disobedience to the Pope. They claim they are like St. Paul withstanding St. Peter to his face on an issue where they claim the Pope is wrong. Others use this to justify opposing their bishop, claiming they are following the example of St. Paul. There is a problem with this however.

Let’s look at the passage from Galatians 2:

¹¹ And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

¹² For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.

¹³ And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

¹⁴ But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

St. Paul is calling to mind a flaw in St. Peter’s behavior, not his teaching. His personal actions warrant a rebuke. St. Paul is not disobeying St. Peter because this is not an issue of obedience.  So it cannot be used to argue that we can defy the bishop when he acts as head of his diocese.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Correcting a Superior

St. Thomas Aquinas brings forth an excellent exposition of what the correction of a superior entails:

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church. (Summa Theologica II-IIa Question 33: Article 4)

The act of correcting a superior requires charity, gentleness and respect. Angry, rude and disrespectful accusations are not a part of such a charitable correction. St. Paul demonstrates the attitude which St. Thomas Aquinas discusses. He is not rude and abusive. He brings the facts of where Peter goes wrong in his personal behavior, but does so respectfully.

Recognizing that Our Way is not the Only Way

Another problem to be aware of is that just because we have a preferred solution to a problem does not mean only our situation is right. I may personally prefer that our bishops punt the dissenters out so hard that they bounce on landing. However I need to recognize that, because the Church acts with the mentality of saving those who are in dissent from her, the Bishop may have a valid reason for undertaking a different action than we do.

The Need to Recognize the Possibility of Personal Error and Partisanship

We must also recognize that before judging a bishop we must be certain we have all the relative facts. If our understanding is flawed, our conclusion will be flawed as well. It probably reflects our original sin, that it is easier for us to think someone else errs than that we err.

Likewise we need to recognize that a similarity between a Catholic position and a political party plank does not mean that the bishops are “liberal” or “conservative.” We need to realize the one who is partisan may be us.

If we do not realize this, we run the risk of dogmatizing our personal beliefs and mistaking them for the beliefs of the Church.

You Cannot Draw a Universal Conclusion from a Limited Sample

Another problem is the tendency to argue from the bad decisions of certain bishops that the whole is corrupt. Now there are bishops who do wrong and do disagree with the teaching of the Church. However, it does not follow that all bishops are bad because of this.

To have a valid argument which makes a universal conclusion, one needs a universal premise (All [A] is [B]). If you don’t have this Universal premise, you cannot draw a universal conclusion. To make an argument about the whole, you have two options.

You can either say:

1. All [A] is [B]
2. All [B] is [C]
3. Therefore All [A] is [C]

Or you can say:

1. All [A] is [B]
2. No [B] is [C]
3. Therefore No [A] is [C]

Any other valid form of argument can only speak of “Some,” not the whole. Even that requires one universal statement (Either “All [A] is [B]” or “No [A] is [B]”) to go with the limited statement (“Some [B] is [C]” or “Some [B] is not [C]”) to make a valid conclusion (Therefore some [A] is [C] or Therefore some [A] is NOT [C]).

Otherwise, the argument cannot be said prove its point.

So to apply this to the case of the Church, if one wants to say that ALL Bishops are bad, or to say NO bishops are good, that person has to establish universal premises and show that the premises are true

Begging the Question

This brings us to our next error to consider. This is the failure to establish that a claim is true, but merely assume to be proven what needs proof:

1. The Church is falling into error by doing [X].
2. If the Church wasn’t in error, she wouldn’t do [X]

We call this Begging the Question because we can ask, “On what basis do you say [X] is wrong?” Or “On what basis do you say the Church is doing [X]?” If [X] isn’t wrong or if the Church isn’t doing [X], then the argument doesn’t work.

If someone tells me “All Bishops are corrupt,” I have a right to ask that be proven. I don’t have to take your word for it. We can look at the Church teaching on [A] and see if it is being violated by the bishop (as opposed to being handled differently than we would like).

I suspect this is why so many “appeals to Rome” against some Bishop fail. The allegation is made, the Church looks at it and recognizes that the accuser does not realize their allegation does not establish real wrongdoing.

Confusing Partisanship with Doctrine

We also need to be aware that just because a bishop formulates a response for his diocese which seems to come close to a political plank for one of our parties does not mean the bishop is acting out of sympathies for one party or another. The Catholic Church opposes abortion. Not because the Catholic Church is “right wing” but because the Catholic Church believes that the unborn children are human beings. The Catholic Church does not oppose the anti-immigrant laws in America because they favor the Democratic Party, but because they believe these actions go against the obligation to treat each person as a child of God.

We have to judge the political parties by Church teaching, not Church teachings by political ideology. We also have to recognize that the rejection of one extreme does not mean the acceptance of the other extreme. For example, the rejection of pure socialism is not an endorsement of laissez faire capitalism, and the rejection of laissez faire capitalism is not an endorsement of socialism.

Overlooking our own lack of knowledge and potential to err

One thing I’ve learned over the years is that there are many who assume the Church teaches a thing when she does not, or does not realize that their own views are far stricter (or far more lenient) than the Church teaching.

I’ve personally experienced people hear me say [A], then reason “If [A] then [X]. If [X] then [C]. Therefore he supports [C].” I then get accused of holding [C] when I actually reject [C]. The false accusation is based on the assumption that premise [X] follows from holding [A] without checking to see if I actually agree that [X] follows from [A].

This also happens in the Church. For example some argue:

• If a bad priest appears to unchecked in a diocese, it means the bishop is doing nothing.
• If the bishop is doing nothing, it means he sympathizes with the bad priest.
• Therefore the bishop is corrupt/heretical etc.

The problem is, just because we don’t see a response does not mean an absence of response. If we do not know how the proper procedure, if we are focused on punishment while the bishop is focused on redemption, then it is possible that we can judge a bishop out of ignorance.

So the question is first, do we know all the facts of the case? If we do not, educating ourselves is necessary.

Conclusion

The anti-magisterial attitude among certain Catholics is a danger which needs to be recognized. Yes some bishops do wrong and need to be corrected. However, others do not do wrong but are accused of being wrong because the individual thinks a case should be handled differently. Also the whole is often judged on the failings of a few.

I don’t feel we need to justify a bishop who does wrong through choice or through a mistaken judgment. However, we do need to realize that it is entirely unjust to judge the whole on the basis of what we think is correct, without verifying that our knowledge is correct.

Nobody wants to admit their knowledge is lacking on a topic important to them. For those who seek to be faithful Catholics, having to admit not knowing is difficult — it’s as if we feel we are admitting we are less faithful than we thought. But that simply isn’t true.

Once we realize we don’t know a thing, we can begin to learn. However, so long as we stubbornly cling to thinking we know all there is to know about a situation, the result is clinging to error. It is dangerous for a person to assume he is not blind and therefore is allowed to judge.

^40 Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”

^41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains. (John 9:40-41)

Viciousness

Jesus said to his disciples:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but underneath are ravenous wolves.
By their fruits you will know them.
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit,
and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,
nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down
and thrown into the fire.

So by their fruits you will know them.”

—Today's Gospel Reading

I've noticed that blogs written by people who believe Fr. Corapi did wrong to leave the active ministry have received a lot of comments by his supporters.  Let's be frank.  These comments are vicious ad hominems which attack the bloggers for being judgmental – and ironically they themselves are judging the motives of the bloggers, the bishop, the religious superiors of Fr. Corapi's order, accusing them of all sorts of things.

It is something which comes to mind when I consider today's Gospel reading.  If such comments reflect the fruits of Fr. Corapi's ministry, what does it say of the tree?  (Now keep in mind I have no idea what percentage of those following Fr. Corapi's new activities behave in such a way, so I will not say all are guilty or even most.  They might turn out to be a small minority behaving in a way which is not approved of by Fr. Corapi).

So let's look at this.

If it is condemnable to judge the actions of Fr. Corapi it is also condemnable to judge the actions of those who write about him.  Yet there are a certain portion of his supporters who angrily attack anyone who dares say Fr. Corapi is in the wrong to do as he did, accusing the bloggers of bad will.

I must call this hypocrisy.  You who condemn judging.  Do you judge?  What gives you the right to judge in return?  Why are they wrong to do so and you right to do so?

Moreover, do you judge the whole Church as being in error except for your tiny little corner of it?  Is that not the kind of judging you condemn in those who believe Fr. Corapi is in the wrong?

Are you sure you do not have a beam in your eye, while trying to remove the mote in the eye of another?

Now, if you truly believe that Fr. Corapi is in the right and those thinking he did the wrong thing are in error, if you truly believe the bishop who began the investigation against him did so from bad motives, then demonstrate how this is so in a factual manner.  Those who criticize Fr. Corapi's leaving active ministry can point to real wrongs he did (regardless of whether or not he is innocent of the charges of misconduct).  Can you do the same without relying on Fr. Corapi's ipse dixit?

So let us behave like civilized individuals.  Both those who believe he did wrong and those who did not are essentially people who try to be faithful Catholics, and do stumble at times.  This vicious sort of attack of a bishop and of bloggers is unworthy behavior of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ.

Let us behave in a way of Christian brotherhood even when we disagree, lest we supply the enemies of the Church with ammunition while we turn on each other.

Viciousness

Jesus said to his disciples:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but underneath are ravenous wolves.
By their fruits you will know them.
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit,
and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,
nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down
and thrown into the fire.

So by their fruits you will know them.”

—Today's Gospel Reading

I've noticed that blogs written by people who believe Fr. Corapi did wrong to leave the active ministry have received a lot of comments by his supporters.  Let's be frank.  These comments are vicious ad hominems which attack the bloggers for being judgmental – and ironically they themselves are judging the motives of the bloggers, the bishop, the religious superiors of Fr. Corapi's order, accusing them of all sorts of things.

It is something which comes to mind when I consider today's Gospel reading.  If such comments reflect the fruits of Fr. Corapi's ministry, what does it say of the tree?  (Now keep in mind I have no idea what percentage of those following Fr. Corapi's new activities behave in such a way, so I will not say all are guilty or even most.  They might turn out to be a small minority behaving in a way which is not approved of by Fr. Corapi).

So let's look at this.

If it is condemnable to judge the actions of Fr. Corapi it is also condemnable to judge the actions of those who write about him.  Yet there are a certain portion of his supporters who angrily attack anyone who dares say Fr. Corapi is in the wrong to do as he did, accusing the bloggers of bad will.

I must call this hypocrisy.  You who condemn judging.  Do you judge?  What gives you the right to judge in return?  Why are they wrong to do so and you right to do so?

Moreover, do you judge the whole Church as being in error except for your tiny little corner of it?  Is that not the kind of judging you condemn in those who believe Fr. Corapi is in the wrong?

Are you sure you do not have a beam in your eye, while trying to remove the mote in the eye of another?

Now, if you truly believe that Fr. Corapi is in the right and those thinking he did the wrong thing are in error, if you truly believe the bishop who began the investigation against him did so from bad motives, then demonstrate how this is so in a factual manner.  Those who criticize Fr. Corapi's leaving active ministry can point to real wrongs he did (regardless of whether or not he is innocent of the charges of misconduct).  Can you do the same without relying on Fr. Corapi's ipse dixit?

So let us behave like civilized individuals.  Both those who believe he did wrong and those who did not are essentially people who try to be faithful Catholics, and do stumble at times.  This vicious sort of attack of a bishop and of bloggers is unworthy behavior of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ.

Let us behave in a way of Christian brotherhood even when we disagree, lest we supply the enemies of the Church with ammunition while we turn on each other.

Uncivil War

It's somewhat sad seeing the split, between Catholics who try to be faithful, over Fr. Corapi.  It seems there are two positions.

1. Fr. Corapi is a wonderful person who is being grossly mistreated by the Church.
2. Fr. Corapi is a self-promoting egoist who abandoned his vocation when the going got rough.

I think both positions are guilty of partisanship.  Group #1 tends to focus on the bashing of the US bishops.  Group #2 tends to focus on the bashing of those who criticize the Magisterium.

The problem is, partisanship does not bring us to the truth.  This current dispute only serves to deepen mistrust between those Catholics who seek to be faithful.  People on the same side are (theologically speaking) shooting at each other – a Civil War.

One thing I think causes confusion is the overlooking of the fact that there are two issues – issues which are being blending into one.

The two issues are:

1. Fr. Corapi either did or did not engage in misconduct towards his accuser.
2. Fr. Corapi either did wrong or did not to wrong in terms of his leaving the active ministry of the priesthood in favor of becoming a private pundit.

This leaves us with four possibilities:

• He did engage in misconduct and he did wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
• He did not engage in misconduct and he did wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
• He did engage in misconduct and did not do wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
• He did not engage in misconduct and did not do wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.

This would make him one of the following:

• A knave looking out for #1
• Rash by bailing out instead of trusting God
• Cutting his losses and getting out
• Heroically continuing his mission the only way he can

Of these, only one can be considered honorable.  The other three do not reflect well on his character.

Since we do not know whether he is guilty or innocent in terms of misconduct (SOLT has not yet determined the credibility of the accuser… and no longer can now that he has left the ministry of the priesthood), the only thing we can ask is whether he did right or wrong in leaving his ministry.  Now I admit that I do not know the proper procedure or whether he is following it, so I really cannot at this time determine his guilt or innocence in leaving the active ministry… though I do recognize that the Church has the right and the responsibility to assess both issues.

I would say this however.  Regardless of whether or not the current policy of automatic suspension until the truth is found is unjust [which is cited by Fr. Corapi and his defenders], we cannot justify doing wrong in response to wrong being done.  So I must say I must disagree with those bloggers and commentators who claim he is justified simply because they think the policy unjust.

I think we need to remember not to engage in rash judgment on one hand and not justify wrong being done in response to doing wrong.

Thus I ask that we who seek to be faithful Catholics stop this Civil War and instead do our best to learn the truth before making accusations.

Uncivil War

It's somewhat sad seeing the split, between Catholics who try to be faithful, over Fr. Corapi.  It seems there are two positions.

1. Fr. Corapi is a wonderful person who is being grossly mistreated by the Church.
2. Fr. Corapi is a self-promoting egoist who abandoned his vocation when the going got rough.

I think both positions are guilty of partisanship.  Group #1 tends to focus on the bashing of the US bishops.  Group #2 tends to focus on the bashing of those who criticize the Magisterium.

The problem is, partisanship does not bring us to the truth.  This current dispute only serves to deepen mistrust between those Catholics who seek to be faithful.  People on the same side are (theologically speaking) shooting at each other – a Civil War.

One thing I think causes confusion is the overlooking of the fact that there are two issues – issues which are being blending into one.

The two issues are:

1. Fr. Corapi either did or did not engage in misconduct towards his accuser.
2. Fr. Corapi either did wrong or did not to wrong in terms of his leaving the active ministry of the priesthood in favor of becoming a private pundit.

This leaves us with four possibilities:

• He did engage in misconduct and he did wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
• He did not engage in misconduct and he did wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
• He did engage in misconduct and did not do wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
• He did not engage in misconduct and did not do wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.

This would make him one of the following:

• A knave looking out for #1
• Rash by bailing out instead of trusting God
• Cutting his losses and getting out
• Heroically continuing his mission the only way he can

Of these, only one can be considered honorable.  The other three do not reflect well on his character.

Since we do not know whether he is guilty or innocent in terms of misconduct (SOLT has not yet determined the credibility of the accuser… and no longer can now that he has left the ministry of the priesthood), the only thing we can ask is whether he did right or wrong in leaving his ministry.  Now I admit that I do not know the proper procedure or whether he is following it, so I really cannot at this time determine his guilt or innocence in leaving the active ministry… though I do recognize that the Church has the right and the responsibility to assess both issues.

I would say this however.  Regardless of whether or not the current policy of automatic suspension until the truth is found is unjust [which is cited by Fr. Corapi and his defenders], we cannot justify doing wrong in response to wrong being done.  So I must say I must disagree with those bloggers and commentators who claim he is justified simply because they think the policy unjust.

I think we need to remember not to engage in rash judgment on one hand and not justify wrong being done in response to doing wrong.

Thus I ask that we who seek to be faithful Catholics stop this Civil War and instead do our best to learn the truth before making accusations.