What is perhaps the most disheartening factor of the whole mess is that the priests will attack each other on a personal basis, accusing each other of sometimes the most horrid crimes against the Faith, of base ulterior motives, of pride, ambition, and of many other vices which are far removed from the dignity of their priestly character.
The irony lies in the fact that most people end up taking their sides based on motives far different from the heavy theological arguments contained in the articles they read. More than ninety percent of the lay people, in my opinion, are not capable of making an informed decision of true and false, right and wrong, when faced with the onslaught of two debating sides.
...Other lay people have become so disheartened or even disgusted by the perpetual "idea-wars," that they have taken the route of avoiding priests altogether. They stay home and say their rosaries on Sunday. These are the "Home Aloners."
A few actually follow the controversy, and do manage to make informed decisions about which side they wish to be on.
No matter what their reaction to the controversy, or the loyalty they choose, a common denominator among all lay persons is that they are sickened by the personal invective and spirit of hatred which they find in the priests' attacks on each other. The more frequent these wars become, the more their ability to tolerate it becomes frazzled...
The Causes of Incessant Priestly Warfare
The sickened lay people are wont to dismiss the controversies among priests as "bickering," as if it were motivated purely by personal animosity, with no basis in theological fact. This certainly is not the case. While personal animosity may sometimes be the principal cause of disagreement, and while many priests, including myself, are guilty of descending occasionally into sarcasm, vituperation, and satire, nevertheless in most cases the issues are real and concern very important aspects of the Faith which touch, obviously, on eternal salvation.
...But a priest who has been well-trained and validly ordained, does not, by that fact, have the power to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church. This power, this legal right to teach, to rule and sanctify the faithful is known as jurisdiction. This right to teach, rule and sanctify, which creates an obligation in the faithful to believe and obey, is given to the priesthood by God Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is confided not to every ordained priest, nor even to every consecrated bishop, but to the pope. The pope has universal jurisdiction to teach, to rule, and to sanctify the faithful; all of the power confided to the Church for these functions rests in him. This power of the pope is the same as that of Christ; it is a single power which does not change from pope to pope, but which remains the same no matter who should occupy the papal office.
Since the Church is too vast for the pope to rule directly, a certain portion of the flock of Christ is confided to bishops, who in turn confide a certain portion of their flocks to pastors of local parishes. Hence the three levels of jurisdiction in the Catholic Church are those of pope, bishop, and pastor. The office of teaching the Church belongs to the pope alone acting in his capacity as head of the Church, or to the pope together with all the bishops, whether dispersed throughout the world, or united in a general council. When the teaching office of the Church is thus exercised, the faithful have the obligation to assent to the doctrines which it sets forth.
The office of ruling the Church belongs likewise to the pope, and to bishops to whom a certain portion of the faithful has been entrusted. When the pope or bishops make laws within the realm and scope of their jurisdiction, the faithful are bound to obey. Pastors of parish churches may not make laws.
The office of sanctifying the faithful by means of distributing the sacraments and preaching is also the pope's, who again distributes this power to bishops of dioceses, who in turn distribute it to pastors of churches. From this distribution of authority comes a priest's right to say Mass, distribute the sacraments, and preach, by which right he is an agent of the Catholic Church in the performance of these tasks.
The Catholic Church operates in a manner which is intensely dependent on authority. While it may be asserted that all institutions and societies operate on authority, and become chaotic in the absence of it, this fact is especially true of the Catholic Church. For in the Catholic Church, the authority has not only the right to tell you what to do, but also the right to tell you what to think. Thus without the operation of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, the Catholic becomes incapable of deciding with certitude of faith what should be thought about a particular point of doctrine or moral teaching.
True, there is the entire deposit of faith, the pronouncements of popes and councils. About these things there is no dispute and no lack of certitude. Where the problems arise is in the interpretation and application of what has already been set down. Thus we have seen a great deal of dispute about what to think about Vatican II, about whether the post-Vatican II popes are true popes or not, about whether to accept the New Code of Canon Law or not, about whether to accept Novus Ordo marriage annulments or not, about the validity of Novus Ordo sacraments, and so forth.
Because of the great divergence of opinion on these and other issues, many have sought refuge in the surrogate authority solution, that is, they have assigned the teaching and disciplinary authority of the Church to someone else besides John Paul II [or in the case as now Benedict XVI].
Such, essentially, is the position of the Society of Saint Pius X. As best I can analyze it, they perceive Archbishop Lefebvre as someone sent by God to lead the faithful Catholics through this crisis in the Church. He thus had, in their view, an extraordinary mission from God, different from and independent of the mission confided to the successor of St. Peter, whereby the Archbishop would filter or sift the teachings and disciplines of the Vatican II religion, selecting what was Catholic, rejecting what was non-catholic or harmful to souls. For the Catholic to survive the crisis, it is necessary, in their view, that he submit to the authority of John Paul II and of Archbishop Lefebvre, accepting as true and good only those things to which Archbishop Lefebvre gave the nod. The faithful thus have the comfort of knowing that they are under the guidance both of the Church (John Paul II) and of God's special protection (Archbishop Lefebvre) in this special crisis. The Archbishop's mission from God, therefore, created a throne of authority which continues to exist after his death. It is shared by the Superior General, who succeeds to the Archbishop's administrative, doctrinal and disciplinary authority, and by the four bishops who were consecrated, who carry on the mission of the Archbishop to sanctify souls.
In keeping with this system, the "hierarchy" of the Society expects an interior, intellectual assent of its clergy-members to its various positions and pronouncements, as well as a submission to its policies and disciplines. Failure to comply leads to the same sanctions which the Church would have imposed on recalcitrant heretics and schismatics. For they actually perceive their dissenters as those who have broken from Catholic unity, it being impossible to adhere to tradition without adhering to Archbishop Lefebvre's mission from God.
This system provides a strong and stable sense of security. On the one hand, they say that they recognize the authority of John Paul II. This fact soothes the nerves of the uncomfortable Catholic who obviously does not want to be "against the Pope." On the other hand, the system provides them with the divine right to reject certain teachings of Vatican II, to ignore excommunications, and to distribute sacraments — even consecrate bishops without authorization, all because of the "mission from God" which Archbishop Lefebvre possessed. It sounds great. It is the best of both worlds. Unfortunately it isn't true.
Thus the surrogate authority solution is appealing to the Catholic reacting to the modernists in the Vatican. It makes for dogmatic and disciplinary unity in a time of utter chaos. It gives them the assurance of being right with God and right with the Church, even though they are disobeying the (putative) Pope. Needless to say, this security is illusionary, downright false. It is impossible to even conceive of a religious authority which is not that of the Roman Pontiff, without completely destroying the very nature and essence of the Roman Catholic Church. Purely and simply, you cannot have any authority or power to do or teach anything in the Catholic Church, unless you have received it from the Roman Pontiff. The authority of the Roman Pontiff is the authority of Christ; it is one and the same authority, not two authorities. To claim, therefore, a mission from God to teach, rule, and sanctify the faithful, which has not been confided to you by the Roman Pontiff, is to claim a mission from God which is separate from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Groups other than that of the Society of Saint Pius X have also adopted the surrogate authority approach. They usually involve a personality cult of some prelate or priest. The tell-tale characteristic of such groups are the fulminations against those who disagree with them, as if the dissenters were in some way opposing the authority of God or of the Church.
The problem becomes clear when one considers that there can be no order without some authority which is both claimed by its bearer and recognized by those who are subject to it. In the absence of the authority of the hierarchy, however, no priest or bishop may claim to have a jurisdiction over the faithful, beyond that which is conceded by the Church in the confessional or in other cases of necessity in a very transitory manner. Even in the case of the traditional priest hearing confessions, claiming jurisdiction owing to the necessity of the faithful to be absolved, in no way does he receive the power to make laws, or teach, or settle theological disputes. It is merely a passing authorization to dispense a sacrament.
The traditional priest or bishop cannot, therefore, make any claim to authority, since it can only proceed from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
What he can do, however, is request that the people who come to him for sacraments respect his conscience as to the conditions he perceives necessary both for him to distribute the sacraments, and for the faithful to receive them.
He may also point out, like a teacher in a classroom, how certain conclusions flow from the deposit of faith. In this he is obviously not an infallible teacher, but he may legitimately point out to people the necessity to think or believe something due to its connection with the faith.
...While this sounds very simple, the problem frequently arises in this chaos in the Church that her laws are in need of interpretation, practical application, and of dispensation. This is where the fighting begins. One priest interprets, applies, or dispenses differently from another, which causes acrimonious exchanges, even to the point of accusing each other of being non-catholic.
...Other "hot topics" include: (a) whether John Paul II is the Pope or not, which has enormous practical consequences, (b) whether the New Code of Canon Law is acceptable or not, an equally important topic; (c) whether Vatican II is acceptable or not; (d) whether the John XXIII liturgy is acceptable or not; (e) whether the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid or not; (f) whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre had the authority to teach, rule, and sanctify the faithful; (g) the status of the CMRI; (h) the consecrations of Abp. Thuc. To argue about such things is not merely "bickering," and the faithful should not dismiss the exchanges between priests by an off-hand comment such as, "Oh, the priests are fighting again."
If the priests are fighting, they are fighting for the good of the Church, for Catholic truth, and to protect the faithful from deviation, whether imagined or real. The faithful have the obligation to educate themselves as best they can about what is being discussed, to make a decision based on their knowledge, and then to live by it. To do anything less would be willful ignorance.
How does one strike a balance, then, between usurping authority and a chaotic free-for-all?
Suggested PrinciplesPrinciple 1. Nothing can take the place of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing. No priest or bishop, devoid of the Church's authority, can presume to have the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, whereby to bind the consciences of other priests or the faithful to a theological position which he has taken, or to make laws which oblige the faithful under pain of sin. This principle should be applied in both orders, speculative and practical. While some would unhesitatingly agree with this principle, in the practical order they violate it either by imposing sanctions upon those who disagree with them, or by public denunciation of their opponents as non-catholics or evildoers.
Principle 2. The absence of authority does not mean that truth is relative. The purpose of the Catholic Church is to infallibly propose to us the truth. In the absence of this authority, truth, the mind's conformity to reality, obviously still exists, is objective, and must be sought. The difference is that our theological conclusions, no matter how objectively certain they may be, do not carry the stamp of the Church's authority. This fact does not make them any less true, but means that they impose themselves in the minds of the faithful by virtue of their own evidence, and not by virtue of the authority of the Church...
Principle 3. Priests' groups should avoid making "rules" or "policies" which usurp the Church's authority to teach, rule, and sanctify. This problem has been the plague of the traditional movement. While it is a blessed thing that traditional priests should come together in groups and cooperate, these groups tend to be fraught with conflict and dissension owing, ultimately, to the lack of authority in the Catholic Church at the present time. Typically they form at the beginning with a certain success, but fail to be clear about the theological principles upon which they operate, and the limits of the "authority" of their leaders. Without fail, dissent erupts, parties form, priests leave, denunciations are made, and splits occur. Then the group, in an effort to consolidate itself, becomes a type of cult, in which the member priests are expected to give assent to "rules" and "policies" as if they came from the authority of the Church.
The obvious problem is that while the priest may and must submit his conscience and/or his obedience to the pope, his bishop, or lawful superior in normal times, he cannot feel justified in so doing to a group of priests or organization. ...A traditional group or an organization, however, lacking authority, cannot tell a priest to recognize an annulment, and the priest then must fall back on his own conscience, as he must answer to God for what he does. The conflict then arises: the group seeks to impose its "policy" on marriage annulments, and the priest feels obliged to resist in conscience. Typically the priest is tarred and feathered by the group for being a renegade, is thrown out onto the street without support or sustenance, and is denounced from the pulpits to the lay people as being an evildoer, a schismatic, or a heretic. This is absolutely sickening behavior.
While it is necessary that priests' groups achieve a certain unity of thought and of action, they must work out some mechanism to deal with the legitimate dissent of some of its members, and in all cases refrain from abusive denunciations of their disagreeing brother priests. Expelling them to live in misery for the rest of their lives, for the sole reason that they cannot reconcile their consciences with the "party-line," does not seem to be in keeping with the law of charity. How will young men ever be attracted to the priesthood, if they see that they might have to spend fifty years of their lives in a never-ending dog fight? How could we expect a young man to give his life to a cause in which he is likely to lose both his reputation, through vicious attacks, and his livelihood, because of the need to follow his conscience?
Principle 4. A priest is responsible to God for the sacraments he distributes. The priest cannot distribute the sacraments in an irresponsible manner, under the pretext that there is no authority to determine who should and should not receive them. He is obliged to study the norms of Canon Law and apply them as best he can to the diverse thorny situations which present themselves today. The very absence of authority, however, means that the rules he makes concerning his distribution of the sacraments are between him and God. He cannot cite the "authority" of a priests' group or organization to justify something that is contrary to his conscience.
My point in enunciating this principle, however, is that the individual priest's exercise of his priesthood, his saying of Mass and distribution of the sacraments, cannot legitimately fall under any other authority than that of the Catholic Church. Whatever the nature of the group or organization, it cannot presume to dictate rules concerning or limit the individual priest's distribution of the sacraments. Priests may voluntarily agree to certain common practices, but they may never be legitimately constrained by so-called "rules" or "policies" made by such groups, for the reason that these groups, purely and simply, lack the authority to make them.
Principle 5. Give the benefit of the doubt, wherever possible. The effect of being deprived of authority is doubt about what to think and what to do, not, obviously about the truths of the Faith, but concerning the application of these truths and of the constant practice of the Church to the current problems. Thus many people, including priests and bishops, say and do things which others find false or offensive. In such cases, it is prudent, in my opinion, that the opposing sides at least presume good will in each other, in that each have a disposition to follow the teaching and discipline of the Catholic Church. I say "wherever possible," however, since sometimes the deviations are so extreme that no reasonable person could presume good will in the wrongdoer.
Principle 6. It is only the competent authority of the Catholic Church which can sever a baptized Catholic from the communion of the faithful. It is an effect of baptism that one is incorporated into the Catholic Church, and one does not lose this effect unless he voluntarily and knowingly quits the Catholic Church through heresy or schism, or is severed from the Catholic Church through an excommunication inflicted by competent authority. Accusations of schism and heresy are hurled continually in these priest-battles, as well as applications of automatic excommunications for this or that crime. A private bishop, priest or layman, lacking authority, has no right whatsoever to authoritatively declare other Catholics to be outside the Catholic Church. A priest may make a private judgement that someone has culpably defected from the Faith, and act upon that judgement in a private sphere, but he may not force others to observe the same judgement. To do so would be to usurp the authority of the Catholic Church.
Principle 7. A Catholic does not incur a censure if he has done something wrong in good conscience. While it is true that Canon Law presumes guilt and bad conscience when someone does something wrong, it is also true that presumption yields to fact. If we should see our fellow traditional Catholics saying or doing things which are objectively wrong, even objectively heretical or schismatic, if there is evidence that they are in good conscience about what they are saying or doing, they should be given the benefit of this evidence. This is a time of confusion and doubt, and it is probable that in most cases Catholics who are objectively erring are doing so in all good conscience. Fulminations of anathema and excommunication should be avoided in such cases.
Certainly there are cases where good will or good conscience seem to be lacking. The judgement about such things is up to the individual priest, but it must always be remembered that his judgement is not authoritative, and another could legitimately disagree...
Principle 8. Good conscience is an excusing cause, but not a justifying cause. The very use of the "good conscience" argument in defense of what someone is doing is an admission that what he is doing is objectively wrong. ...[ther is present nowadays] the basis of an "I'm OK, you're OK" attitude, which is certainly not a Catholic attitude. The toleration of another's wrongdoing, or even the recognition of their innocence due to ignorance, does in no way justify what is wrong. Despite the innocence of the wrongdoer due to ignorance, Catholics must always continue to condemn what is objectively evil, and avoid it.
Principle 9. When criticism is justified, let priests criticize each other without sarcasm or personal invective. Many priests descend into personal attacks on their fellow priests, and I am certainly not an exception to this. Priests are human beings like anyone else, and they have tempers and pride, and when these get together they can do a great deal of damage.
Let us all resolve to keep to the topic of discussion and put down the flame throwers. What troubles the laity is not the theological debate itself, but the flow of contempt and bitterness which inevitably accompanies these debates. As I said earlier, the lay people should understand that the debates do become heated owing to the fact that the stakes are very high in most cases: the truths of the faith, the validity of the sacraments, communion with heretics or schismatics, communion with the Novus Ordo, the identity of the Church, and so forth. ...I specify personal invective, that is, attacks upon the person of your opponent.
Principle 10. The lay people should ignore the priestly sarcasm and invective, and sift out the arguments. Realizing that their priests are human, they should try to put aside, as much as they can, the human failings of these men who have given their lives to serve them. The arguments, and not the personalities, of each side should be weighed, and the mind of each person should be thus formed. Even if, later, one should change his mind, no one could be held accountable for his error, if he has approached the problem in a reasonable way.
Principle 11. A saint supported a false pope. St. Vincent Ferrer supported what has proven to be a false pope in Avignon, France, against the true pope in Rome. At the time, the identity of the true Pope was in doubt. It was easy to make a mistake, and most of the people of both France and Spain supported the wrong one. Fortunately St. Vincent changed his mind and withdrew support from him, but even when he was supporting the wrong one, God graced him with being a veritable wonder-worker wherever he went preaching. This fact should give everyone a certain reserve about the tone of criticism he hurls against his opponent, since the person you have criticized to death might end up being canonized. While it was correct to have pointed out to St. Vincent his error, and certainly many did, a respect is due to a person's good will and holiness of life, particularly in the context of the confusion which we daily live.
Conclusion
It should be recalled that if the voice of Peter could be heard, there would be no "bickering" at all. ...It is this willingness to believe what the Church teaches and to do what the Church commands which is the essence of the faith and of the submission to the Church. The fighting priests should always keep this fact in mind, and cherish and respect the bond of faith and charity which is the very soul of the Catholic Church.
The "bickering" of the past ten or so years may be replaced by peace and concord in the future. I see gradually forming an international entente of many priests who are of like mind on the essentials, and who, even more importantly, have learned to disagree politely on non-essentials. The very ability to distinguish between essential and non-essential points of accord is, I hope, a breakthrough for the traditional movement. I hope and pray that this unity among uncompromising traditional clergy will grow, and have the effect of producing large international seminaries which will provide for the Church's acute needs of the future.
--by Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn.
Edits and emphasis is mine - Louis
0 comments:
Post a Comment