Bellwether of Persecution

Read more »

Reflections on Dark Church History

I’ve been reading The Spanish Inquisition by Henry Kamen (I figured it would be good to root out any triumphalism in me to read it during Lent, but I started early). It’s a book that came highly recommended as being as unbiased, and not taking part in the Church bashing. But it still shows a grim picture of an ugly time. Ugly times, where ugly things were done—and some of them in the name of religion. These are things that can’t be justified. But we can try to understand how they happened then—changing what needs to be changed on one hand while avoiding any post hoc arguments that claim that Catholic belief in itself caused the actions that were wrong.

 

President Obama managed to offend most of Christianity when he equated the actions of ISIS today with the actions of Christianity over 500 years ago—treating the abuses as if they were main purposes of the actions. Christians were right to be offended by this overly broad statement. However, one thing I have noticed about the response to Obama’s words is that some of my fellow Catholics seem to go in the opposite extreme. Instead of saying that the abuses were the norm, some of my fellow Catholics try to deny or downplay the fact that these abuses did exist. Such behavior is, of course, scandalous when it comes to our witness to non-Catholics. It looks like we’re belittling the suffering that was caused or behaving like the modern Holocaust deniers. 

I don’t write this in a sense of “You Catholic bloggers need to be more like me.” God knows I have been in the same boat at times, looking for excuses that exonerates Catholics. It’s one of the things where belief in the Mark of the Church as Holy is mistakenly understood as meaning that the members of the Church were impeccable (without sin). But that’s a battle we don’t have to fight. The Church is holy because of Christ, not because a certain percentage of her followers are saints, and if she falls below that quota, she will cease to be holy. This is shown in The Prayers of Forgiveness that St. John Paul II offered on May 12, 2000. It’s humbling to read, and sometimes it’s easy to say, “But what about—?"

I think another reason for defensiveness is that we fear that if something wrong was done by leaders of the Church, it will be a refutation of the belief that God protects His Church from teaching error. But I think this fear is misplaced. Not all magisterial decrees are taught as infallible doctrine, and some decrees (such as laws governing the Papal States prior to 1878) do not fall under such teaching at all. Christ’s promises about the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church weren’t aimed at the temporal governing of a territory or a political action, even if done from a religious motive. The Popes of the time had the authority to do these things, but we don’t have to treat them as doctrine. So we don’t have to try to defend the Jewish ghettoes in Europe or the like. Admitting these were wrong is not a denial of the Church’s holiness or infallibility.

With that said, I think we need to remember that to have a good act, we need three things:

1. The act itself must be good.
2. The motive for doing the act must be good.
3. The circumstances surrounding the act must be good.

If one or more of these things is missing, the act is not good—even if the intention was to do good.

In addition, even if the Church decree for something was good in itself—meeting these three conditions—it doesn’t mean it will be executed well (no pun intended). Yes, the Crusades were intended as a defensive action. Yes, the inquisitions were intended to find out subversive actions done to undermine the faith, but that doesn’t mean that the people who took part in them were all saints and that all the actions done were right or done for the right reasons. People, being sinners, can corrupt anything. It is tragic that members of the Church were quick to cooperate with (and sometimes encourage) the state in things where they should have been the ones saying “slow down."

So let’s not try to deny the anti-semitism in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition or the evil actions done in the Crusades. Let’s not deny that the Summa Theologica has some cringeworthy ideas (like the treatment of heretics in Summa Theologica II-II q.10 a.8 resp.)

Of course at the same time, let’s not look at the evils done and say that the Church needs to abandon her teachings. Yes, evils were done in the name of the Church—and some of them by people highly placed in the Church. But people who act out of hatred or greed or other vices and exploit the Church in doing so are not a sign that the Church teaching “X is wrong,” is the cause for Christians mistreating people solely because they are part of group X. There are some misguided Catholics out there who point to the Crusades as if they are a good idea for today in response to ISIS. But the Catholic teaching that the existence of Christ’s Church "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him” (Lumen Gentium 8), is not the cause of certain Catholics behaving in a bigoted manner towards non-Catholics, just like believing marriage can only be between one man and one woman is not the cause of mistreating people with same sex attraction.

And let’s also get rid of the idea that the people in Europe from the 12th-17th centuries could and should have thought like 21st century Americans. What we have in society today is based on the development of Christian thought and the stabilization of society. The idea of a pluralistic society (as opposed to an empire with subjected peoples) did not exist yet. It was developed during this time. Political society evolved from the decrees of the ruler to being a more constitutional view of how to treat people—a view formed by Christian ethics.

I think Pope emeritus Benedict XVI had a good point which can be derived from when he was writing about “dark passages” in the Bible and how to understand them:

God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. (Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini 42)

Even now, with the fullness of revelation in Christ being given us [that is—no further divine revelation], humanity can come up with new ways to be barbaric and cruel, and, in response, the Church needs to determine what is the best way to apply what we believe to these situations (for example, nuclear weapons required us to consider new aspects in the concept of “just war”). For example, the Church did not have much to say on slavery before it reemerged in the 15th century, because it was largely dying away in Christian Europe. But when the Azores were conquered, and slaves were taken, the Pope at the time (Eugene IV) certainly had something to say on the matter in the Papal Bulls Creator Omnium and Sicut Dudem. Sometimes it takes an abuse to exist before a response can be given, and sometimes it can take awhile before people recognize that a thing is an abuse. Remember, we believe the Popes are infallible when it comes to avoiding teaching error as binding—it doesn’t mean they are omnipotent (all knowing) understanding that wrongdoing is happening or grasping the significance of it. Sometimes, scandal has happened when the Church has been silent over something when it should have spoken out. But we have to distinguish these things before assigning blame to the Church.

Understanding where blame goes is that first step that needs to be discerned. The individual who decides on his own to commit an evil act and tries to justify it by pointing to Church teaching cannot be justified if his interpretation of Church teaching goes against the Church understanding. The state that enforces laws that the Church calls unjust is going against Church teaching. In these cases, it cannot be said that the Church is to blame for the actions of the individual or the State. It’s only when individual or the state is properly obeying (as opposed to misinterpreting) the Church in doing wrong, or when the Church is knowingly silent instead of speaking out that the Church herself can be said to be to blame. These things did happen of course—St. John Paul II did see the need to apologize for actions done in the name of the Church. But ultimately, we need to discern first, neither defending the indefensible nor condemning that which was not wrong.

Two World Views in Conflict

(Edit: It occurs to me that some of what I wrote in this article could be misinterpreted as a whitewash of or ignoring the things in history that are appalling when viewed today. This was not my intent. I recommend seeing HERE for some of my reflections on the darker parts of Church history)

In the 5th century AD, St. Augustine wrote his classic City of God which dealt with the two perspectives on the world—pagan and Christian. He showed the superiority of the Christian view. I don’t pretend to have any of his talent of course, but it seems to me that there are two major world views in conflict today in the West—the view of respecting the importance of God and the view of rejecting the importance of God. Now there is a range of views within these two groups. Some approach these things passively. Others approach it more militantly. So we can’t speak in a way that “all members of group X will behave exactly this way.” But we can point out the problems of the consequences that lead from the ideas.

These two views of God lead to two arguments about how a nation needs to be in sync with reality: The view that asserts that the reality of God needs to be reflected in the laws, and the view that denies that God is a reality which needs to be reflected in the laws. As I presented them, these views seem to be opposites, but in fact, the two views have a great deal of influence on how they treat those who do not think like them.

The group that asserts the reality that God exists and has established the universe to work in a specific way and has done so for our benefit—where living in opposition to this design causes harm to the self and to others, even though we have the free will to do so. Under this view, laws exist to promote the public good established by God and restrict people that choose to use their free will to bring harm to others. For example, a law against murder does not restrict the freedom of good people, but does have repercussions for would-be murderers. This view does not compel people to do what they think is evil or forbid them from doing what they feel morally obliged to do. But when such groups practice beliefs that harm society, law does not permit this. In other words, the group of people who do not share the beliefs about the nature of God are not forced to accept them (even at its worst, the Spanish Inquisition did not force Jews and Muslims to convert—though the Spanish government of the time did exile those who did not).

So, under this world view, the Jew living in Christian society can refuse to eat pork or can choose to circumcise their sons—things the Jews believe themselves obligated to do. He can refuse to become Christian. The Christian and the Jew might disagree on the nature of God but that disagreement in itself is not forbidden under law. (I’m not saying that all was well for Jews in Medieval Europe—by 21st century standards, they were unjust. But they had freedoms in medieval Europe that some are trying to take away from them—see below). 

However, to use a different example, the person who finds pregnancy inconvenient and wants an abortion would not be free to do so because such behavior is harmful to others (the unborn children). The fact that one group in the national population might have no problem with abortion is not a just excuse for allowing what is seen as murder to be permitted. Since nobody rational has a belief that says “I feel morally obligated to abort my child instead of put it up for adoption,” this law would not be forcing one to act in a way they thought was evil—despite the convoluted sophistry sometimes used to make people think this is a matter of conscience.

However, the world view that denies the existence of God and does not recognize belief in God has a bad habit of not allowing people to opt out. Even setting aside the obvious examples of the totalitarian regimes, a nation operating under the assumption that religion is of no value tends to have no respect for the people who hold it does. If a person who makes law believes that religion is a fantasy, they will not see any value in tolerating this “fantasy” when the people holding it want to opt out because their beliefs tell them they must do something they don’t want to do or tells them not to do things they feel they must do—not out of personal benefit, but out of the belief that loving God requires them do certain things and avoid other things. 

This isn’t hypothetical. Look at the western cities and even countries trying to ban circumcision today—something Jews believe they are obligated to do to be faithful to their covenant. Or how about Christian business owners being targeted by lawsuits and ordinances when they are refuse to participate in “same sex marriage” by providing their services for something they believe is morally wrong? How about the attempts to coerce Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives or abortifacients as a part of their health care coverage? The point is, when the mindset of the law acts as if God does not exist and that religious beliefs should not be allowed to play a role when it comes to drafting laws, the result is religious obligations are written off as being without value, misattributed as being an act of hatred. In such cases, the state makes it the arbiter of what religious obligations and which ones are not. For example, courts seeking to force a priest could be forced to reveal what was said in the confessional. It’s gotten to the point that some feel the need to preempt the courts by passing a law to prevent ministers from being sued for refusing to take part in a same sex “marriage.” Think about that. Ten years ago, such a law would be unnecessary. Today? I wouldn’t be surprised if it was overturned as “unconstitutional."

So when you look at these things, it raises a question. Which worldview is the dangerous one? The one based on the existence of God, but does not coerce people to do what they think is morally evil? Or the group that denies God exists and refuses to consider what religious obligations people hold to be binding?

It does no good to point to another epoch in history and say that Christians are the worse offenders. That’s comparing 500 year old apples to modern oranges. Back then, what passed for government did not have the political and economic stability we have today, and violent punishments were exacted for crimes against the state. Looking at it from the safety of the 21st century, we can all (in that, we Christians are too) be appalled. But these actions were not exclusive to one geographic region, one religion or form of government (Ask Socrates about his experience with democracy, for example). None of us, regardless of our views, could say we would have thought like 21st century Americans hundreds of years ago, regardless of what our views happen to be.

It also does no good to point to modern extremism in Islam today from groups like ISIS and al-Quaeda and say that is the end result of religious views in government. Neither the sins of other religions nor the sins of people acting against their own religion are proof of the danger of religion. In the first case, we do not control what those who do not share our beliefs hold. In the second case, we don’t coerce people who reject their professed religion. We can only appeal to them to remember their endangered relationship to God—you know, the very thing people who reject religion having a place in the public square ignore when we say it?

I would recommend the reader consider this well. If a government is allowed to get away with claiming the authority to decide which religious obligations to decide is acceptable for the people to hold and which are not, that government can also decide on what parts of the freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly and petitioning the government for grievances  are acceptable and what are not. It’s only the government that recognizes the role of God and the obligations He gives us on how to behave that recognizes the restrictions on their governing, and those restrictions are much more of a guarantee than relying on the government which can reject as invalid whatever it disagrees with.

Should We Follow That Cause?

Introduction

The Spiritual Works of Mercy show there are many things we can do in the face of error, including instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinners. When done fully informed of Church teaching, when done in charity and when done in submission to the teaching authority of the Church, these can be good things. But these things are not always done. Sometimes the person or group with a cause lacks the love, the understanding or the submission to the Church. When one or more of these things happen, it is a sign that the activist’s cause may be out of sync with the Church and, as a result, may actually be going against God (see Acts 5:39). Because of this, I believe there are certain things to watch for when deciding whether to take part in a specific cause—even when we may agree with the general principles it promotes.

Preliminary Note 

The word “cause” is an equivocal word, which can be used differently by different people. In one instance, it can be a general idea—for example the Church standing up for the right to life and the proper understanding of marriage. In another instance, it can be referring to a specific group—for example, there are many groups working to end abortion.

For the purpose of this article, I am writing about the second meaning of the word “cause.” That is, those specific groups who act in defense of a Church teaching.

Is there Love? Or Anger and Contempt? 

Wrongdoing can offend us, and anger against sin is not always wrong, depending on how it is directed. But the question is, does the activist show a loving concern for the person or group they are opposing? Or is the person/group seen as an enemy to be vanquished and punished while we ride on in triumph? That’s a hard thing to keep in mind. There are people who do publicly flaunt their rejection of Church teaching and try to make it sound like it is they who are the “real” Christians while those who try to be faithful are portrayed as bigots. It is easy to be angry at them. There are members of the Church who do not take as strong a stand on supporting the Church teaching as we would prefer. It is easy to be disappointed in them. 

But they are still children of God, and need our support in turning back to God. There should be concern for their souls and their being brought back to the truth, even if we need to admonish them for doing wrong. What does a cause opposing them say and do? Do they show this concern? Or do they just treat them contemptuously as people who are doomed to hell and the sooner they are out of the way, the better? If it is the latter, this is a sign that that specific cause may not be good to follow.

Do they accurately understand the Church Documents or what the Accused said/did? 

Unfortunately, some Catholics treat Church Documents in the same way as Literalists take the Bible—with the assumption that the individual doing the reading is true and any disagreement with that reading is wrong. But even a Catholic trying to be faithful to the Church can miss a nuance in the Church teaching, giving a meaning to a document never intended. Even though the Church is quite firm on what one must do in being faithful, she also has a good understanding about the knowledge and will of the sinner. For example, it is common for people to try to contrast the Church documents on the necessity of the Catholic faith with the Vatican II documents on religious freedom as if the two were opposed. They present the two as being in conflict. But when you read Blessed Pius IX and Venerable Pius XII, you see they did not accept the idea of no salvation outside the Church in a way that denied the right of non-Catholics to exist unmolested.

Likewise when reports are given concerning the words or actions of a Catholic, and these reports cause outrage, the question needs to be asked—have the words been reported accurately? Are there reasons for the action which are in keeping with authentic Church teaching? Certainly that is not possible in the case of a pro-abortion politician trying to justify the rejection of Church teaching, but we do need to ask whether the person intends to act against the Church. A lack of clarity does not mean an intent to be disloyal.

If the person in question does not intend to act against Church teaching, then a cause seeking to attack the person as disloyal is misguided and should not be supported. In addition, we need to consider the significance of the misunderstanding. In some cases, it is because the person/group behind the cause is reacting to a wrong in the Church in general and assumes from the thing said or done that the person in question is acting against the Church. In other cases it may be that the people behind a cause wrongly think that something they prefer is a part of Church teaching and are confusing a disagreement over the best way to do a thing as if it was a rejection of doctrine.

Of course, even if the person does correctly understand the person and the Church teaching, the reviling response is never justified.

Do they act in submission to the Magisterium? 

The Pope and the bishops in communion with him are the successors to the Apostles. They do have the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18), and we can have faith that the magisterium will not be permitted to teach error when it comes to things pertaining to our salvation. Yes, a priest or even a bishop may fall into teaching error. But when it comes to assessing where authority is, it is always with the Pope when he teaches with authority. Yes, Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia over his personal failings (Galatians 2:11-14), and some saints have rebuked some Popes (St. Catherine of Sienna comes to mind here) over their personal failings. But these were personal failings, not doctrinal errors, and they never denied that authority of Peter or his successors.

When the cause stakes out the position that the magisterium itself cannot be trusted or seeks to place itself as a judge in addition to or over the magisterium, that is a cause I will not join or lend my support to.

Conclusion 

In short, a specific cause from a specific group should be avoided if it shows one or more of the following:

1. A lack of love for the person or group seen as being in need of correction, treating them as an enemy to be vanquished.
2. A lack of understanding of Church teaching, or of what the person/group actually said or did.
3. A refusal to subject itself to the living magisterium of the Church under the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him.

In such cases, this specific cause has gone astray. It is still acceptable to find a group that works to change an injustice, but not that particular group.

Topsy Turvy: Reactions to The Cardinal Burke Interview

What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
Rorate Cæli: Full translation of Cardinal Burke's interview to France 2

I’m seeing some Catholics responding to an interview with Cardinal Burke that brings up a sense of déjà vu. They’re outraged at the words of Cardinal Burke which give an impression of disloyalty.

If what Cardinal Burke said was cited in context and translated with total accuracy, then it goes without saying that Pope Francis was entirely justified in throwing him out from his position. But, practicing what I preach about not rushing to judge Pope Francis on the basis of clips, let me just say that I don’t think that this “if” is true. (And, if you read my blog regularly, you already know I don’t think the Pope “threw him out” either).

Cardinal Burke, responding to a clip of Pope Francis’ oft misquoted “Who am I to judge," said in an interview with a French TV station as saying (assuming that the interpreter from Rorate Cæli did a good job translating—and I simply don’t know one way or another):

[Interviewer:] How do you intend to place pope Francis on the good path?

[Burke, in Italian] On this, also one must be very attentive regarding the power of the pope. The classic formulation is that, "the Pope has the plenitude, the    fullness, of power." This is true. But it is not absolute power. His power is at the service of the doctrine of the faith. And thus the Pope does not have the power to change teaching, doctrine.

[Interviewer:] In a somewhat provocative way, can we say that the true guardian of doctrine is you, and not pope Francis?

[Burke, in Italian:] [Smiles, shakes his head] We must, let us leave aside the matter of the Pope. In our faith, it is the truth of doctrine that guides us.

[Interviewer:] If Pope Francis insists on this path, what will you do?

[Burke, in Italian:] I will resist. I cannot do anything else. There is no doubt that this is a difficult time, this is clear, this is clear.

Those words, by themselves sound damning. But I oppose a rush to judgment. Why? Because in an interview with Catholic News Agency, Cardinal Burke (affirming he was quoted accurately) said he was “responding to a hypothetical situation” and “I simply affirmed that it is always my sacred duty to defend the truth of the Church's teaching and discipline regarding marriage,” and, “No authority can absolve me from that responsibility, and, therefore, if any authority, even the highest authority, were to deny that truth or act contrary to it, I would be obliged to resist, in fidelity to my responsibility before God.”

What Cardinal Burke says is true. The Pope could not absolve him from the responsibility to defend the Catholic faith over error. So we can’t say he was throwing down the gauntlet of rebellion against the Pope. But, if the Pope did not demand of the Cardinal that he teach error, that’s kind of a non-issue.

I think the problem is the video (following the translation—I don’t know either French nor Italian) seems to be excerpted clips from a bigger interview. Also, the interviewer and the presenter seem to be asking leading questions and biased rhetoric. So it feels like we’re not getting the whole picture needed to make an accurate judgment.

If Cardinal Burke intended to make Pope Francis to sound like a man who was heterodox, then I believe it could be said that he did wrong. But if the station France 2 gave an excerpted version of the interview, then we would have to avoid rash judgment and ask whether there is more material on the cutting room floor that would have clarified his relation with the Pope. If so, then Cardinal Burke could not be blamed and I would hope more information would come forward.

In order to avoid rash judgment, I would have to say we could not denounce (or praise as some seem prone to do) Cardinal Burke for disloyalty. We would have to wait and see, being willing to give a good interpretation to his words, asking him to clarify and only if he did turn out to be disloyal, to correct in love.

Practicing what I preach, I will not judge Cardinal Burke without solid evidence. Because there is none, I will not judge him.

Love and Justice Both: Losing Sight of the Big Picture

In dealing with the concepts of the love of God and the justice of God, it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. It’s easy to get so caught up in focussing on one thing that one forgets that there are obligations to the other side of thing which God calls us to do. We are called, for example, to love those who hate us and to admonish the sinners.

For example, one of the things I notice when it comes to people being offended by the Church is that they tend to be too close to the issue to consider it objectively. It’s natural to feel threatened when someone is personally affected by an issue. But the problem is, when a person takes it too personally, they may lack the objectivity to listen to what needs to be said. It’s important to note that this is not limited to one faction or another. It’s not something that only happens to other people. Each one of us can feel attacked by something we need to hear and respond by refusing to listen. It’s common to hear things like, “God doesn’t care about your rules,” or “you need to stop being legalistic."

This becomes a problem when it comes to denying Church teaching because, as Catholics, we believe that the Church teaching has authority because Christ Himself gave the Church authority to teach, and so the denial of the Church is a denial of Christ. For example, if Jesus did tell Peter in Matthew 16:19 and the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18:18 that what they bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, then God does care about the rules of the Church.

Of course, God also cares about how we apply His rules. While we cannot set His commandments aside, it is possible to forget about the side of compassion and mercy required in teaching His commandments. The possibility of being so focussed on punishing the guilty and worrying about somebody “getting away with” things is dangerous. The possibility of a past mistake or sin repented of is not seen as relevant. If Bishop X once held a problematic position, he cannot ever be trusted again and whoever considers the possibility is not to be trusted either.

So it seems there is a problem with people confusing both what truth requires and what compassion requires. It seems like certain people think that God being loving and merciful cannot condemn the actions being done. From that error, it becomes easy to make one of two opposite false conclusions. Either the person...

1. wrongly assumes that compassion and love means the Church cannot say things we do are wrong.
2. wrongly assumes that compassion and love means the Church is failing to teach right and wrong.

That’s the danger of becoming so rigid or so attached to one’s sins that one loses sight of the big picture—that God is both loving and just. Ignoring one of these in favor of the other is going to give a person a distorted view of God and what we are called by Him to be. Losing sight of God’s justice means expecting God to just turn a blind eye to our sins. Losing sight of God’s love means viewing the sinner as an enemy to oppose instead of a person in need of salvation that we have to reach out to.

Both views need to be opposed. The person who does not want to change his or her ways, and thinks of Church teaching as “manmade rules” are creating a false image of God and risking their souls over a lie.  The person who thinks of the sinner as “the enemy,” are claiming the role of judge that they are not allowed to have, risking becoming alienated from Christ and His Church. We need to realize that the role of the Church does not embrace either extreme. Rather, the Church loves the sinner, while rejecting the false ideas the sinner clings to. The role of God’s teaching is to lead us in living according to His will. Those who have not fallen into a particular sin are called to help their brethren who have and love them—even if the response we receive from them is hostile.

We are called to love and follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that means heeding the Church He established (Matthew 18:17). That also means serving in love in doing so. We can’t just point to the failures of the “other side.” We have to consider our own actions in relation to these two pitfalls.

TFTD: How Dare Those Catholics Require Catholic Schools to Act Catholic?

Read more »