Discussion
on the Sinfulness of Criticizing a Priest/Bishop
Two
of our readers who are also good friends commented on my latest Millstone Award
in which I criticized a local bishop. Both readers declared it was sinful, as a
Catholic, to criticize our clergy. To corroborate their assertion, they cited
the Pieta Prayer Book. Both meant this in all sincerity and were truly
concerned for my soul. I felt this “discussion” would be informative to many
other readers who have the same beliefs. The following is my response:
It
is my duty as well as your duty to defend the faith, and I will prove it
herein. First of all, you identify your source as the Pieta Prayer Book. I will
identify my sources as the Catechism, the Holy Bible, the writings of a number
of Saints plus some sound reasoning from fellow publishers.
Checking
on the authenticity of the Pieta Prayer Book, I discovered it began in the
early 1970s when Harry Faulhaber, a gentleman in southwest Michigan, wished to
have a spiritual gift to leave with his hosts when making home visits on behalf
of his parish. With his wife, Lillian, and a friend in San Damiano, Italy, they compiled a book (or booklet) of their favorite prayers, took it to a local
printer and had 1,000 copies made. This was the beginning of the Pieta Prayer
Book. If you go online and check Catholic Answers’ website you will find,
although The Pieta Prayer Book has a great many valid prayers and has been an
inspiration for many, there are a number of problems with it. It should never
be a reference for theological answers. As one writer commented, "It is
full of non-canonical statements. Can anyone recognize the priest who is
supposed to have given the ‘revelation’ we should not criticize the
priests/bishops?" It still lists indulgences as "x days/years;"
unapproved visions as fact; has many claims of promised rewards for certain
prayers not substantiated; and, more. What is bothersome is the publishers have
been told to drop these errors, but they remain in the latest revision.
I
next checked the Catechism of the Catholic Church and found this:
Item, #907,
"In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they
possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to
the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the
Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other
Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and
reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and
the dignity of persons."443
Doing
a search regarding the subject, I went to St. Thomas Aquinas who refers to the
Bible and states: "It must be observed, however, that if the faith were
endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul,
who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent
danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal.
2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should
happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved
by their subjects." This is taken from St Thomas Aquinas' “Summa
Theologica (Second part of the second part, question 33, article 4, reply to
objection 2)." Searching the Bible you will read how Paul corrected Peter
in regard to his erroneous teaching on circumcision.
In
regard to common sense, I asked a couple of my very learned colleagues of the
Catholic Media Coalition (CMC), who themselves are publishers, about the laity
not being allowed to correct an errant clergy. Mary Ann Kreitzer, President of CMC, and publisher of The Truth, gave this response:
"That
is absolute nonsense. Thomas Aquinas says that the laity sometimes have a duty
to correct prelates, even in public, when they commit public scandal.
“The
Pieta Prayer Book has a statement that no one should ever criticize a priest.
In view of the fact that most heresies were begun by priests, that puts the
laity in the position of never being able to criticize the heretical views of a
Fr. Sparks, Rohr, McBrien, Kung, etc. etc.
“As
for bishops, I believe Nestorius was a bishop. Ask your friend if the laity
should have shut up and followed the heretics? The bishop is the pastor of the
diocese. When his actions and teachings are a danger to the faith, the laity
have an obligation to address it. Your response was excellent!"
The
following is from Stephanie Block, a professional journalist who publishes
weekly on one of the well-known websites. This reflects her good judgment, and
she does a great job covering both sides of the issue:
"Actually,
the bishop is really the only pastor -- parish priests operate according to his
pleasure. So the canon applies first and foremost to the bishop. There is no
question that the faithful have a right (granted by canon law) and a duty
(mandated by scripture) to bring serious problems with the clergy to the Church
for redress.
“That
said, there has always been a strong "culture" against criticizing
clergy...and rightfully so. For one thing, there's a tendency to be interested
in things that are none of our business: Father didn't say good morning; Father
bought a cappuccino at Starbucks; Father spent over an hour in private
conference with that pretty Miss Smith...by the time the gossips have finished
with the story, Father is a misanthrope who's robbing the poor box to court
vulnerable young women.
“For
another, there's a tendency to make Father's real sins an excuse for one's own
or an excuse for snubbing the Church. Father may have caused the initial
scandal but the public critic has spread it.
“So,
one really shouldn't enter into the business of clerical correction lightly.
But, we DO need to make a few distinctions:
1.
Until recently, there were ecclesial courts that had their own places of
restraint for dangerous clerics (pedophiles, for instance. NB, most immoral
activity requires no lay intervention). There is no longer such an
institution...meaning that, for the protection of the innocent in these cases,
the faithful MUST appeal to civic protection of civil courts and prisons. This
is a regrettable public act but one dictated by circumstances.
2.
Correction of an errant cleric is NOT denunciation of his person or even of his
opus (for which there are special Vatican offices). Communication is no longer
what it was. Private acts are increasingly public. (Heck, we can't even travel
without strangers examining beneath our clothes!) The cleric who DOES preach
heresy often spreads it by Internet, video, books, or popular media. What once
could be corrected in a humble, homely, private manner ("No, dears...Jesus
was both Man AND God...no matter what Father implied.") now requires
strong, public apologetic response. The purpose isn't to criticize or denounce
the cleric or religious -- which the laity have no authority to do -- but to
correct his errors. That's quite a different matter.
3.
The bishop who fails in his pastoral duty -- like anyone else in authority who
fails in their duty -- invites chaos. That the sheep might try to hold the
flock together themselves and keep the wolves at bay despite their shepherd's
negligence is utterly disordered but neither unnatural nor is it the fault of
the sheep! Having allowed the loss of souls because it's the bishop's duty to
protect them and not ours isn't going to be much of an excuse on Judgment Day.
“So,
yes, it is a sin to "put down" a bishop...unless he is guilty of an
immoral behavior that MUST be restrained or guilty either of express doctrinal
error or negligence (usually failure to restrain others under his jurisdiction
from doctrinal error) that MUST be corrected."
And
one more writer from CMC: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of
rotten bishops." Saint John Chrysostom, 349-407 A.D. Doctor of the Church.
I
have much more, but I think this suffices. I rest my case.
I
really do thank you for your concern for my soul, but I am not only allowed to
address errors on the part of the clergy, but obligated to do such. I think
others have the same obligation.
Think
of Fr. Sparks making derogatory remarks about Our Lady (he does) and no one
rebukes him. How does Jesus feel about those who do not defend His mother?
Jim Fritz