Hopeful Signs: A Church Changing Course

It’s not exactly easy being a faithful Catholic in today’s Marshmallow Church. It seems everywhere we look, there are too many marshmallows around.  It’s a rare occasion indeed to find any spine among the episcopal and priestly class against the daily scandals inflicted on the flock.  In fact, most of the scandals actually originate with them.  It’s enough to challenge your Faith when those in authority refuse to apply what the Church believes in its pastoral practice.  The issues involved are not mere trifles, either, but strike at the heart of how serious the Church is in its witness.  When enough clerics provide a scandalous example, compromise with the culture, and prostitute themselves for social or political gain, it’s enough to bring us to our knees, to question if we can really trust those in authority over us.  In the case of Development & Peace, for instance, to this day, the management of Development & Peace, the bishops, and their mouthpieces in the lapdog Catholic media have not admitted anything of substance.  It’s all been about “renewal” and other flatulent drivel.  The mainstream Catholic media has been a particular disappointment, preferring to sanitize and wash over the evidence by referring to it as mere “allegations” in their reports.  It’s pathetic. Where would we be without independent news sources and blogs — those sources which are not under the thumb of the bishops or other church organs?  In the dark, my friends, in the dark.  And that’s where they would have preferred to keep us. If you don’t think so, ask yourself why no admission of the facts has been forthcoming?  You’ll find your answer in that question.

Nevertheless, every so often, faithful Catholics see a ray of hope. During the Kennedy fiasco, for example, Archbishop Raymond Burke, a top Vatican official, encouraged pro-lifers to continue shining the light, reminding the marshmallows in the Church that criticism of their conduct was most appropriate.  Even Archbishop Collins, commenting on the Development & Peace fiasco, acknowleged the need for “acrimonious controversy“.  Not too long ago, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Rhode Island took on Patrick Kennedy and told him to refrain from receiving Communion.  I’m not certain just how that squares with how Cardinal O’Malley treated Ted Kennedy’s funeral, but I’m sure there won’t be a shortage of his apologists to contort themselves into explaining the nuances between the two situations.  There are none, of course.  If you want to know why some priests suck up to the secular and ecclesiastical establishment, Bishop Tobin offered a revealing insight.  Tobin was asked by the Providence Journal whether his firm public stand was designed to advance his career within the Church. “No,” he said. “Bishops who tend to be really outspoken don’t tend to get promoted.”  Exactly.

Today, I learned of a column by Bishop Robert Vasa of Oregon.  In my opinion, Bishop Vasa is one of the top bishops in North America for his steadfast pro-life witness.  Read what he says below. I have highlighted the most impressive sections:

Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties

BEND — During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances.

The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.

I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging.

When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very dis-couraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.

It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.

In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.

The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error. (Source)

These are all good and hopeful signs for the Church because slowly but surely She is starting to change course for the better. It won’t be complete in our lifetime, but it’s coming.

Thanks be to God.

One thought on “Hopeful Signs: A Church Changing Course

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
6 − 1 =