
Return to Archives
The US Bishops and the "S" Word
by Mary Jo Anderson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Catholic pundits have begun to talk sotto voce about “after
Dallas” as an historic moment in the history of the Catholic Church in
the United States. They use the phrase in the same manner that aging
liberals use the phrase “after Kent State” or the Reagan Republicans
employ “after the fall of the Berlin wall.” What do Kent State and
Berlin and Dallas have in common? They are seen as watershed events—a
pivot in history that sent developments in an utterly different
direction. It is ironic that the poles of Catholic thought in the
United States perceive that the Church will head down the same road;
dissidents see that road as the path to the future, orthodox Catholics
see that road as the path to perdition.
“It is not hysteria on my part to warn that the Church could be
lost in the States” one priest wrote in an email. “There are dioceses
where there once was a vibrant community, and today there is only
secularism—Norway for instance.” “The Church will never recover” claim
those Catholic Americans whose faith is like the seed that fell on
rocky ground. “Did you listen to the bishops? Not one addressed the
real issue of episcopal accountability. Not one offered to resign!
There is no faithful leadership in the NCCB,” lament some conservative
voices.
Meanwhile across the theological divide their dissident Catholic
counterparts are chalking up a victory, “We succeeded in keeping
homosexuality out of the document.” Counting eggs before they are
hatched these liberals believe they see the AmChurch approaching over
the horizon. “The US church will become the church of the laity, now”
smirk the dissident Catholics in their Internet chat rooms.
The Village Voice, a pro-gay New York based newspaper summed up
their view of the future–church post Dallas with this boast, "…because
of this crisis, the stage has been set for the kind of debate about
church governance that has not occurred since Vatican II in the early
1960s. This discussion will probably not take place before the
election of a new pope, but that will happen sooner than the
disappearance of the scandal. The most likely outcome of such a
process is a change in the character of the American church. Some
power will devolve to local bishops—and even to the laity."
Another infamous dissident, self-professed lesbian Mary Hunt, was
also smug, “The bishops have met alone for the last time.” Hunt is the
director of a women’s group that openly performs parody masses where
women preside as “priests.” Hunt said there will be “..a shift from
bishops setting the agenda to the people setting it.” Of course, “the
people” Hunt has in mind are not orthodox Catholics.
There were several prelates who stood before their brother bishops
in Dallas urging that the crisis could not be solved by a failure to
accurately diagnose the injury to the Body. Bishop Bruskewitz has been
widely praised for his courageous remarks. Cardinal Bevilacqua stated
stance that “homosexuals cannot be admitted to the priesthood.”
Cardinal George delivered a serious warning that the Church must find
the will to be authentically Catholic in this “Protestantized, secular
culture.” Another handful of bishops engaged in behind the scene
efforts to persuade the NCCB committee to acknowledge that dissent
from Catholic teaching must be addressed—all to no avail. One bishop
decried the reality that the wider body of bishops “have no control
over the agenda for the Dallas meeting.”
This is evident in the committee’s selection of two prominent
liberals to address the this historic gathering, Scott Appleby of
University of Notre Dame’s Cushwa Center for the Study of American
Catholicism and Peggy Steinfels, editor of the liberal journal,
Commonweal. Appleby is the co-author with Mary Jo Weaver of Being
Right: Conservative Catholics in America. The book sneers at prominent
American orthodox defenders of the faith, such as Professor Ralph
McInerny and Professor James Hitchcock. Worse, Appleby and Weaver lump
these eminent Catholics with several fringe characters who hide in the
hills of Idaho spouting “Catholic” prophecy. Both Appleby and
Steinfels call for laicization of the Church. Both are proponents of
“shared power” as an ecclessial model.
The average Catholic is confused. The nightly news lists poll
numbers showing church attendance and collections are holding steady,
while fully 50 % of Catholics have lost faith in their bishops.
Individual bishops have delivered comforting and encouraging messages,
others are overshadowed by the threats of lawsuits and the selling of
assets to pay for the huge judgments. Ninety-six percent of Catholics
want the Holy Father to take disciplinary action against bishops who
do not remove child abusers from the ministry, according to Zogby
International and Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York.
Serious Catholic thinkers have delivered their reasoned post-Dallas
analysis to their respective audiences. H.W. Crocker, III author of
the acclaimed one volume history, Triumph: The Power and Glory of the
Catholic Church, wrote:
…far from being the authoritarian institution of black legend, the
Catholic Church, in America in particular, has tolerated dissent to
the point of criminality. When a Catholic priest can publicly embrace
the agenda of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, as the now
notorious Father Shanley in Boston did, and have his superiors treat
this as a tolerable eccentricity, something is seriously wrong. And
that wrong will not be righted by the introduction of more liberalism
into the Church.
Troubled by what they perceive as the bishops plan to be more
liberal—as indicated by the presence of Appleby and Steinfels-- some
Catholics have even whispered the “S” word. While schism from the
“AmChurch” is not an option, the fact that it is mentioned, even in
frustration, is indicative of the magnitude of the crisis in the
Church in the United States.
The real frustration is the dawning reality: we must extricate the
Church form this sinkhole. That is the most cogent perspective, post
Dallas. How can we have any confidence in such a mission?
First, the Catholic population has been aroused. The issues of
orthodoxy and liberalism will be openly discussed and studied. It is
the time for orthodox Catholic laymen to be very visible
--respectfully—but persistently. God raises up His people to do His
work. Placid, timid Catholics now know they are in a battle for the
life of the Church in this nation—Dallas should be understood as a
call to arms! To the degree that Catholics laity fail to defend
authentic Catholic teaching, they are themselves complicit. To the
degree that Catholics fail to become involved at the schools,
university, parish and diocesan levels, they are equally to blame for
the state of the Church in the US in the coming years. That is a sober
charge, but it is point made by a great Father of the Church, St. John
Chrysostom:
“He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For
unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters
negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do
wrong.”
Secondly, the Vatican will, however slowly and with deliberative
care, take a stronger hand behind the scenes. One lesson learned from
this crisis may be critical for the next pope. The Vatican II
understanding of collegiality is still developing. As the universal
Church examines how well national conferences, such as the NCCB/USCC
have or have not served their flocks, the hierarchical Church gains a
clarified picture of how the Church must proceed.
And last, as the history of the Church amply reveals, we have faced
each internal crisis and survived not be cause we are a faithful
people but because God is faithful.
A wise priest once advised me, “When to the human heart all seems
lost, that is when you understand that hope is a virtue, not just a
happy wish.” Hope is a theological virtue, according to the Catechism
of the Catholic Church (1812-1813). The Catechism instructs, “The
virtue of hope…inspire[s] men’s activities…” (1818). This is a time of
hope, that is, a time of activity on behalf of the hope we have in
Jesus, the Bridegroom who did and will defend His Bride, the Holy
Catholic Church.