|
Articles
> When Catholics Behave Badly
Status Ecclesiae
March 2006
When Catholics Behave Badly
- by John Mallon, Contributing Editor, Inside the Vatican
Some expressed surprise that Pope Benedict
XVI’s first encyclical, made public on January 25, should
have been about love. Benedict was the prefect for the Congregation
of the Doctrine of the Faith before his election, and so was
often tagged as a theological “enforcer,” harsh
and cold, having to rain on the parades of silly theologians.
It is unfortunate how people often get confused with their
jobs. For 25 years, many were blind to the gentle priest Joseph
Ratzinger was and is.
Many also missed the sublime theologian so clear and adept
at diagnosing the Church’s ills and explaining them.
There is clearly a need on a continuing basis to explain precisely
what Catholicism is, and why it exists. The former Cardinal
Ratzinger also wrote a book on this, Introduction to Christianity.
As every preacher knows, the basics of the Gospel and of the
Faith must be continually taught and re-taught. But, as one
of my favorite theology professors, the redoubtable Regis
Martin, used to constantly remind his classes, “It is
easier to write 100 volumes of philosophy than to live one
Beatitude.” And that explains why Benedict decided to
go “back to basics” in his first encyclical, and
to teach Catholics that love is the sine qua non
of Christianity; it is “all-in-all.”
This can be risky. Certainly a lot of nonsense has been propagated
in the last 40 years in the name of “love” and
in the name of being “pastoral,” and it is demonstrable
that bad doctrine is bad pastoral practice.
That is why true love, compassion and pastoral practice must
be based on right doctrine, or it is a lie and will harm everyone
involved.
There is no conflict between right doctrine and loving pastoral
practice, only between right doctrine and bad pastors.
The problem seems to be one of conversion. There cannot be
orthopraxis without orthodoxy.
That being said, there is a problem in the Church in the
West. The Church in the West has been excessively “feminized”
in an unhealthy way.
Unfortunately, as another of my theology professors used
to say, “In the Church, every reaction is an over-reaction.”
In an overly feminized Church there are some reactionaries
who behave as if they have an extra “Y” chromosome.
Thus, within what would otherwise be the orthodox camp, the
spirit of Christian love can somtimes be hard to find. This
is a tragedy, because there is nothing more orthodox than
love, properly understood, and nothing discredits the Christian
witness more than the lack of charity.
What are we to say of a former business executive now heading
a Catholic apostolate, after a conversion experience, who
leaves his secretaries in tears due to his harshness? What
if this Catholic leader casually fires staff who are having
personal problems or sudden great needs, and says, “It’s
just business,” in a cavalierly utilitarian way, all
the while claiming to admire John Paul II’s philosophy
of Personalism?
We say, “No, this is not an ordinary business; it is
an apostolate, and the people who work for us or alongside
us are no less Christ present to us than those we are ostensibly
serving with the apostolate.” People who act this way
remind me of the description in the Book of Proverbs: “Such
is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth,
and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’” (Proverbs
30:20)
Or, what do we make of a Church leader who avoids or delays
payment to staff when the money is there, claiming the money
is needed for the “cause” or the “mission”?
As if sacrifice could be mandated? Especially when the top
dog wants for nothing?
Those who confuse apostolic work with secular business and
employ questionable ethics in the name of “mission”
are clearly missing the boat. It took the Lord 4,000 years
of building Western civilization and its system of laws to
protect people from being treated like this, and to “waive”
such protections through the claim of “the needs of
the mission” is insulting—not least of all to
the Lord. Christian mission holds us to a higher standard;
it does not give us the right to toss aside ethics, much less
laws, that rightly bind in the secular world.
We all insult God, and I am no exception. There are more
planks sticking out of my eye than you can shake a stick at.
Sin is an insult to God and we all sin. Each one of us has
a blind spot, or a scotosis, as the followers of Bernard Lonergan
would say. But if we all had to be sinless before we could
discuss sin, the world of theology would be very quiet. Or
maybe not.
Theological discussions can easily turn sinful when all-too-common
Odium Theologicum sets in. For example, I received
more “hate mail” for my column in January, “The
Obedience Test,” than for anything I have written since
I was in the diocesan press suggesting that Catholics should
vote pro-life.
This ferocious hostility centered on what I thought was the
rather innocuous observation that the Society of St. Pius
X (SSPX) is in formal schism. I had never known the Society
not to be in schism. Some who denounced me seemed to think
I was gloating by making that observation, and accused me
of defiantly contradicting Ecclesiae Dei Commission President
Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who was quoted in an interview
as saying the SSPX was not in formal schism. (The cardinal’s
actual quote in the English edition was, “...the situation
of separation came about, even if it was not a formal
schism.” Emphasis added.) (30 Days, September
2005)
Others angrily accused me of deliberately lying and of committing
the sin of calumny against the Society, without first ascertaining
why I had written what I wrote. As I explained to one such
correspondent, I simply had not seen the cardinal’s
comment.
I take no joy in anyone being in schism. It is a tragedy.
If I am wrong in characterizing the Society as in schism,
I am glad. Schism hurts us all.
Following this barrage of accusations against me, I investigated.
I was told by the Ecclesia Dei office that Cardinal Castrillon
Hoyos did not wish to issue any further clarification regarding
his interview. Another Vatican official told me to check the
interview in the original Italian.
In any case, some ambiguity still exists as to the exact
status of the Society. Canon 751 in the Code of Canon
Law defines schism as “the refusal of submission
to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the
Church subject to him.” (This is also quoted in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2089.)
It is well known that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is working
very hard to regularize the Society’s status to bring
it into full communion with the Church, and I can understand
him not wanting to jeopardize that work. But what continues
to puzzle me is this: If there is no formal schism, what is
there to be regularized? To my knowledge none of the excommunications
of the bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
in 1988 have been lifted. If this is not schism, what is?
(I’m quite sure if I am mistaken I will be corrected.)
I pray for the success of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’s
efforts, and hope others will join me in this prayer.
As I was repeatedly reminded by those who denounced me, members
of the SSPX don’t need to be “lectured”
by the likes of me, but in my modest opinion, one of the greatest
liabilities of the SSPX is the well-documented nastiness of
some (not all) of the members toward anyone who dares to disagree
with them. As Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall
know them.”
Legend tells us that St. John the Beloved Disciple, at the
end of his life, would tell the young people wanting to hear
stories of the Master, “Just love one another.”
1 Corinthians 13 plays hardball. It is not a sentimental
first reading at a wedding where Kahlil Gibran takes the place
of the Gospel reading. Love is not something “soft.”
St. Teresa of Avila said, “Love is as hard and unbending
as Hell.” It has to be.
The early Romans marveled at the outlawed Christians, saying,
“See how they love one another.”
The pagans of our day are most certainly observing us. What
do they see when they watch us?
John Mallon is a Contributing Editor to Inside the Vatican
magazine. He also has regular columns on the website Catholic.Org.
An archive of Mr. Mallon's work also appears here: http://www.petersvoice.com/mallon/index.html.
You can reach Mr. Mallon at
johnmallon@insidethevatican.com.
Subscription Information
Inside The Vatican (ISSN 1068-8579) is a Catholic news magazine, published monthly except July
and September, with occasional special supplements.
| 
