Good and balanced, I thought, Dale. Critical, but analytical. Who could ask for more?
Dale, your final two paragraphs are golden (and correct!). But your summary merely points out the fundamental problem w/this Church's governing structure: Any changes must be accomplished by the whim of command figures at the top, not in response to legitimate pastoral and moral needs among the laity and clergy. And the vast majority of those figures have been isolated by a structure that discourages accountability and treats its subordinates as children. Thank God people are waking up! People like Stephen Brady of Roman Catholic Faithful certainly aren't liberal, but they're the kind of laity this Church needs: willing to "fight the power" and demand truth. So, for that matter, is the excessively and unfairly maligned Rod Dreher.
I think bishops should do more.
That said, though, when one sees the sorts of reforms that, e.g., we've seen in a few seminaries, I see a concern not only for unity but also for holiness - even if that concern is not yet as zealous as it ought to be.
Also, I know of people who are enemies of those seminary reforms who do not think those strategies are indistinguishable from inaction!
Good that you do not "excuse the Pope" in your analysis; for it really does come down to this: the buck stops in Rome. We could have real reform TOMORROW if Rome had the courage to enact it. It is not that difficult to start reform from the top (where it really has to begin); just requires a martyr or two. But then Rome is known -- at least in the past -- as the City of Martyrs. We must pray for our Pope.
Unfortunately, I'm very deeply skeptical that it'd be that easy.
When my son had cancer there were times when I could not get him to take medicine that he *had* to take. There were people who told me to just make him do it. How? Threaten him? (with what?) Beat him up? Lose his soul while I *saved* his body? (He was only seven and at times simply could not see that there was any percentage in doing things that he hated and that were in fact, awful.) I don't really think the Pope has much more leverage than I had.
[This comment is lifted from a comment @ another blog, in response either to you or someone who thinks exactly like you (?)]:
I think you underestimate just how bad a de jure schism is. Look at this from a historical perspective and you might sympathize with Rome on this a little more. Heresy and bad leadership are very bad but they can be overcome: in the past, the tactic has been to deploy the Fransciscans, the Dominicans, the Jesuits, and it’s worked. Today, it’s Opus, the Legionnaires, the lay movements, and the results can be repeated. As the culture is sanctified, you have a holier pool to draw from when appointing bishops.
(cont'd) Now, from a historical perspective, tell me how often de jure schisms heal, and how quickly? A bishop in schism is like a virus: he reproduces himself. The point: right now the American church is a problem, but it’s on the way to being solved. The Night of the Long Knives that Rod Dreher seems to expect from the Holy See could potentially create a Great Western Schism starting in America with half of Europe following.
(cont'd )Rather than complaining about how they are adversely affected by this strategy, the "core constituency" should lend a hand and help to make it work. How? The way forward in the new evangelizarion is set out very clearly in JPIIs encyclicals, people, we've just got to follow. I often wonder if those who are fond of saying "Words...words...so what? Let's see some action!" ever stop to consider that maybe they are the ones who are supposed to be putting these words into action. Mark Shea is right when he says that the U.S. gets the bishops they want - the only way to improve the quality of leaders is for the culture to be sanctified, and this can start from the grassroots.
Some final thoughts (and sorry for the length of all this, but you've touched on a v. important issue): the strategy you've acutely spotted is known in ecclesial circles by the Italian term "Romanitas", and it has developed over centuries. Not every one is in complete agreement that it's the best strategy for these unusual times. There is a group whose members, many of them cardinals, will occasionally make statements such as "It may be that the Church will have to face a reduction in numbers as the price for fidelity, and that a remnant will carry the faith forward". This is code for "If I were Pope, heads would roll and let the chips fall where they may." For now, they are careful about what they say out of obedience; some of these Cardinals are definitely papabile, though, and this _will_ have an effect on voting in the next conclave.
You're going to hate me for dumping all this in your comments box, but I can't resist one last point:
you write (about the Pope): "If he wants to operate like an Orthodox prelate, that's his perogative. But there is a steep cost to be paid for acting as the Patriarch of the West, as opposed to the Sovereign Pontiff."
but, it's important to remember that in spite of the long history of the See of Peter demanding acknowledgement of its primacy, the actual exercise of power in appointing bishops (& the rare instances of removing them) is a fairly recent development. The "hands off" approach (read: subsidiarity) is really the historical norm. If JPII were to demand the resignation of every incompetent bishop in America, this would be (and be seen to be) an unprecedented exercise of papal authority. It could lead to wide resentment in the various local churches and strain relations with the Orthodox irreparably.
Thanks, Dale, for a very perceptive and provocative post.
tt:
Good stuff, and a lot worth chewing on. I'll post a response later.
Kevin:
I'm not arguing against reforming seminaries, by any stretch of the imagination. I know for a fact it seems to infuriate people--I seem to recall a NCRep article whining about the idea that seminary reform was being considered part of the focus of the scandals. Nor do I doubt that holiness is being emphasized more--the Frs. I speak to indicate that this is the case. To which, I can only reply--"Great!" Nor do I expect the Pope to call every errant bishop on the carpet and scream, a la Trump "YOU'RE FIRED!" [Though I admit it would replace "24" as my can't miss show of the week.] But one or two high profile removals, with the evidence for same laid out, would be quite salutary. And sufficient to get the point across.
Even leaving the Pope out, there's nothing at all that prevents a bishop from removing a cancer like a George Wertin, Michael Pfleger or Walter Cuenin. Yet the only guys who get removed are the Paul Weinbergers. Something is seriously amiss h
here.
Dale - and let me clarify: I'm not denying that more should be done than is being done. I'm just suggesting that somewhat more is being done - in some places - than I thought you were suggesting.
Re: whether Weinberger was really treated so unfairly - or is really so good - though ... naw. I'll leave that aside. Don't wanna open yet another can of worms. Really.
Well, if we're going to talk about removing cancers, it's probably worth pointing out that some can be removed in toto just themselves, so to speak, and some must have an inch of what looks like good flesh taken out all around them, if you use surgery... otherwise they just grow again. Volunteers?
tt,
I believe that a Pope in the 19th century removed the entire Episcopacy of France that had been contaminated following the French Revolution / Napoleonic years -- could someone clarify that / correct me?
#5 is the key point, Mr. Price:
"Fifth, the strategy can be indistinguishable from inaction, and can be a great excuse from shying away from the job. Sometimes inertia is just inertia."
Right ... and this is why The Situation affects everything. It's not because some who have been harsh, even if strictly speaking unduly, on the bishops are on a heretical vendetta.
Credibility, trust and respect (which are not AT ALL the same as forgiveness or the formal powers of ecclesial office, BTW) are things that cannot be regained once lost. Or if they can take ten times longer to rebuild than to destroy.
CONTINUE last note:
At other times and places, it would have been possible and rational for lay Catholics to *trust* that the bishops would handling things in the fullness of time and with due respect for appearance and the trappings of the bishops' office. Not any more. The handling of The Situation and the resulting evaporation of episcopal *credibility* make it far more reasonable to assume that something looks like inertia or complicity or denial or coverup or pre-Situation clericalism really is inertia or complicity or denial or a coverup or pre-Situation clericalism.
Whether the matter is Kerry or O'Brien or Schiavo or Weinberger ... you name it ... the bishops can no longer expect and do no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. The great tragedy is that most don't seem to realize that.
Okay. However, (a) there are right and wrong ways to speak of this problem (cf. "undue harshness"), especially since the bishops are still our bishops (and are entitled to a certain respect, if not for their own sake, then for the sake of Christ). (b) Such evidence as there is of something other than mere inertia shouldn't be ignored.
This will probably be my last word on this subject.
Regarding (a) only. Nobody is "entitled" to respect. One can only be "entitled" to formal de jure powers at one end and inherent human dignity at the other. Respect, trust, credibility -- everything in between -- can only be earned or lost on the merits.
And pleading "for the sake of Christ" (or anything else frankly) to gain something for oneself that one has lost because of earlier abuse of that same "for the sake of Christ" plea (or anything else frankly) is a moral mockery.
CM,
I disagree.
Bishops are, by their ordination, made ontologically vicars of Christ. To fail properly to respect them - whatever they have or haven't "earned" by how they have or haven't lived out that ontology - is to fail to respect Christ. Period. That's basic Catholic theology. You don't buy that, you haven't bought the Catholic Church.
I lied. But the use of "Period" always pisses me off and this is too easy and a matter of basic English comprehension to pass up:
"Bishops are, by their ordination, made ontologically vicars of Christ."
I deny that ... how? where? I explicitly say that they are entitled to the formal ecclesial powers, come what may. How can I be more clear?
MORE
"To fail properly to respect them - whatever they have or haven't 'earned' by how they have or haven't lived out that ontology - is to fail to respect Christ. Period."
Please. This is rank clericalism. It also doesn't rebut my point (or prove anything that would entitle you to say I'm not a Catholic [as you seem wont to do] ) unless you can cite the binding documents that say any of the following:
1) the ontological nature of the priesthood puts the caste beyond any judgment of their concrete particular actions (how could a priest possibly sin then) in a nonsacramental sphere;
2) the ontological nature of the priesthood necessarily implies an a priori judgment call about what is "proper," in a nonsacramental sphere;
LAST
3) the ontological nature of the priesthood has anything to do with the secular concept "respect" that I was using -- or any comparable synonym, like esteem, trust, value, look up to.
4) how one can "not live out" an ontology. An ontology just *is,* so if it's a morally relevant nonsacramental datum at all, it has to go "all the way down," again making it seem like your real point is that no criticism of a bishop is ever "proper."
I think Dale's analysis of the Pope's strategy is right on.
Now is the Pope's strategy the right one and how well is it being implemented?
It's clear to me that the screws could be tightened considerably with little risk of de jure schism. Without control over jobs and property, a schism would get nowhere.
But ontologically configured to Christ doesn't mean only "has certain powers." It means "entitled to certain respect." Cf., e.g., the Eucharist!
And there's nothing "clericalistic" about saying that certain respect is due to clerics.
To your numbered points:
1. I never said concrete actions can't be judged. I'm talking about how we (make and) express those judgments.
2. What nonsacramental sphere? A priest is a priest, whatever he's doing.
3. "Respect" a merely secular concept? Begs the question. And see the NT for examples of due respect for Christ, the apostles, etc.
4. I can fail to live as befits a human being. A bishop can fail to live as befits a bishop. One thus fails to "live out" the full reality of one's ontology. And who said anything about nonsacramental? My precise point was that the sacrament of ordination confers an ontological change. Basic doctrine. Finally, it's gratuitious to say that'd mean no criticism is ever proper. An ontological status can command respect without necessarily commanding infinite respect. The former just doesn't imply the latter.
Finally: I suspect (though obviously I can't know for sure) that calling basic Catholic theology of holy orders "moral mockery" pisses me off even more than the use of "period" pisses you off.
On the one hand, I really wish that someone in the Church would do something about the problems we are having. The proliferation of false teaching has gone on too long. Besides, the Vatican's business of writing document after document without doing much to enforce them only serves to potentially increase the temperature of hellfire that those who ignore them may experience. Concrete action may at least give them an incentive to repent and be spared the hellfire.
Then again, suppose the Pope told the bishops they were fired, and they all said "We aren't moving!" The Holy Father can't exactly send the Swiss Guard to the United States to force them to go anywhere. The curent cultural and media climate has a real possibility of convincing many of today's lukewarm Catholics that it doesn't really matter whether they support their bishop or go along with Rome's decision.
We didn't get in the shape we are in overnight, and we won't get out of it overnight. Besides, there is one other factor we need not forget. We get all this crap because we as laity put up with crap. If we refused to listen to those phoney Catholics, they would be out of business in a hurry. They'd either have to become orthodox or find another line of work.
Commenting by HaloScan
