Just expanding on the final comment posted here, clarifying what I meant by citing the Pharisees' objections to Christ's hanging out with the likes of St. Mary M, Zacchaeus, Simon the Leper et al and our objections to the hobnobifications of bishops with the rich and famous in modern-day America. I really don't mean to imply that the two things are equivalent, and I don't claim to be a Bible scholar either. So perhaps I'm taking Matthew 11:16-19 and similar passages slightly out of context. But the reaction of the Pharisees seems to be that of misreading motives and intentions, and we should keep this in mind as we seek to "avoid jumping to conclusions" as the JohnMcG put it wisely in a previous comment to that post.One of the problems I would think that bishops face is that they really can't, or at least shouldn't, "sound the trumpet" about anything good they do. In medieval times, the bishops wore gold robes over a hair shirt. The gold was for the good of the people, the hair shirt was for his own good. He could thus represent the splendor of the Risen Christ and his Church while all the while being reminded of his inadequacies in his own flesh. Many of the people at the time probably forgot about the hair shirt or never even knew about it. You couldn't see it; likewise we don't see certain hidden mortifications, penance, sufferings or good works which may in fact be performed by the self-same leaders we criticize. Pierre Cauchon built a cathedral in repentance for what he did to the Maid of Orleans and we trust St. Joan prayed he be spared from the eternal fire even though he refused to spare her from the temporal flames.
Nowadays news coverage is by nature mostly negative. So I think that we should provide the balance. I'm not suggesting that we deny that some ghastly things were committed or good works left undone by bishops both in recent times and all throughout church history. But if we want to call attention to the eating and drinking and say "behold, a glutton and a wino" we should acknowledge that epithet has been used to describe Someone Else.
If anyone has a hard time seeing the likeness between the Blessed Lord and the American Bishops, they've got plenty of company and myself included. And that's leaving alone the very idea of hair shirt-wearing. If you're a Catholic, however, you're supposed to see with the "eyes of faith" the bishop standing in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. And in the Final Judgement the knowledge of the exact sins of the bishops will not be a criterion by which we shall be judged. I'm more afraid that Almighty God might say to me, "You knew about hair shirts -- where was yours?"
One last note: The critique is often made that bishops should spend more times with their flock and less times with "other celebrities". Recently my family and I were privileged to meet our bishop, Richard Lennon, and it was not at a charity extravaganza, but in our parish school gym on the feast day of our church's patron. He held my one-year old and laughed as everyone asked him if he was running for office. He had to rush out to do confirmations at another parish. Somehow I don't think that "story" made it into any local papers. There was no camera crew at any rate.
Pauli, I understand the "log in your eye" argument against making a big deal about the sins of others'. And when it's just an issue of the flesh, that's one thing.
ReplyDeleteBut what I have a hard time countenancing, especially from freakin' bishops of the Church, is the tendency to water down what Catholicism stands for, and has always stood for, in order to make nice with the principalities and powers that be. I simply find that contemptible, and I find myself un-inclined to temper my contempt from a "mote in your own eye" perspective, quite simply because I know damn well that, however lousy of a bishop I'd make, I at least know that I wouldn't sell out the faith that way.
Andy, I'm going to have to ask you for a concrete example of this "selling out" the faith. Otherwise this just reminds me of my ma-in-law telling my bro-in-law that she didn't think I hit my kid's butt hard enough when I spanked him.
ReplyDeleteConcrete example: bishops refusing to refuse communion to pro-abortion politicians.
ReplyDeletePauli you are doing a great job on this blog.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at it from the Bishop's perspective. Just to be human about it. A priest follows the teachings and through hard work and virtue finds himself bishop of a large diocese. He might be responsible for a couple of hundred million dollars in property not to mention multi million dollar budget, and perhaps a couple thousand employees who have families and need medical insurance, and perhaps even close to a million sheep to look after.
At some point the pressure has got to get to him. Watering down takes place over the years. It is a gradual process, and like a ship in the night you might find yourself 100 miles off course when the sun comes up.
Circumstances can overtake you. Not really disagreeing with you Andy, I have the same reactions too.
Diane, I wouldn't assume that. I hope he does "grow out of it" at some point. We're doing a small part here; there is certainly more chance of influencing a blogger than a bishop.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty much accepted that Rod has a bashing problem; Mike L says in passing, "And Rod Dreher, whose snobbery and Catholic-bashing can get tiresome, gets it just right..."
On YET another note, have you seen the "burnt cat comment thread"? Funny.
"bishops refusing to refuse communion to pro-abortion politicians"
ReplyDeletei think at the moment of communion a priest is required to give us the benefit of the doubt, that we are fit to receive communion, whether "we" is pro-choice john kerry or joe six pack with a love for gambling. as adults, it's up to us to decide whether we are fit to receive communion, assuming we have been properly catechized (a big assumption, granted). also, what if john kerry had repented/changed his position right before mass? can a priest offering communion reasonably rule out such a possibility? not without being psychic.
also, the point i made below after everyone stopped reading that thread: tax collectors weren't the "lowest of the low" because they lacked power and money (in fact they had power and money), but because they were jewish sellouts.
Re: funny comboxes -- check out the one for the "I was a teenage garbageman for my dad's trailer park" post.
ReplyDeleteRe: denying Holy Communion: Kathleen, that's pretty much how I see it and I think that Bishops have stated this as well, but I think I can speak for Catholics like Andy in saying that there seems to be a need for public repentance if there is someone going publicly against the church and that there should be a public acknowledgement and public excommunication.
My repsonse is that's all well and good, but the Pelosis and Kerrys of the world will just so find dissenting priests like Fr. Drinan and spin it into their personal martydom at the hands of the mean hierarchy. Acting like kids, they'll point out others and say "Why don't you excommunicate HIM? He's even WORSE! You're picking on me because I'm _________!" (Fill in the blank: a woman, Italian, a Democrat, Loud-speaker of the House, etc.)
Playing this war out to its logical conclusion, bishops will end up having to assemble SWAT teams to chase down all the priests who cater to errant baby-boomer pro-choice politicians and other public sinners and defrock them, then they'll have to post mug shots in the church sacristies all over DC of those who should be denied Holy Communion.
It seems to make the most sense sometimes to throw up one's hands and say, "It's too late; we lost an entire generation by not catechizing them. Let's start working on the next gen before that one is gone also." And that's what the Bishops seem to be doing.
pauli, i'm not sure it's that easy. a pro-choice argument can be easily rationalized by a catholic, even a faithful one, by a bastardized "separation of church and state" argument, to wit, "yes i'm catholic, and i personally would never get an abortion, but the polity is not and so i can't force my religion upon them", or, "in the public realm i don't take marching orders from the pope, whereas i do in my personal life" (and let's face it, catholics were fine with this argument when kennedy got elected president.)
ReplyDeleteand also, if i end up voting for giuliani in the next election, someone could argue that i'm pro-choice. so where does a bishop/priest draw the line? excommunicate giuliani and all those who voted for him?
Kathleen, voting for a pro-abortion candidate isn't a mortal sin. Voting is a matter of prudence. It's conceivable that it would be okay to vote for someone who supports abortion in order to vote against someone else you see as even worse on this and other issues. However, BEING a Catholic and publically declaring that you have no intention of helping the unborn is creating a scandal and is easily grounds for being denied communion.
ReplyDelete