A wise priest I know once pointed something out to me that I think is true.
The Church in council is guided by the Spirit and so is empowered to “speak beyond herself” because it is the Spirit’s work to guide the Church into all truth while also preserving her from defining a falsehood as part of the deposit of faith. The weird practical effect of this is that the bishops, when defining the Faith, don’t fully know what they are talking about. Because of this, when the council adjourns and they go back to just being ordinary slobs running their dioceses, they can do all sorts of stupid things.
Two examples of what I mean are provided in the New Testament by no less than St. Peter himself. Asked, “Who do you say that I am?” by Christ, Peter answered (according to no less an authority than Jesus himself) under the direct inspiration the Spirit when he replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah. Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven has revealed it.”
Wow! He was inspired by God! He must now be empowered to know everything about everything and never sin or be wrong again, right?
Not so much. A minute and a half later, he is stupidly telling Jesus that he can never suffer or be crucified on his watch and Jesus is telling him “Get behind me Satan! You think not as God thinks but as men think.”
Same deal with the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There Peter again articulates the mind of Christ under inspiration and declares that we are saved by grace and not by the works of the Mosaic law such as keeping kosher–a monumental insight that will lead directly to the Church climbing out of its Jewish cradle and beginning it outreach to the Gentile world that will make salvation available to the entire human race.
But a couple of years later, Peter chickens out on his own inspired teaching and starts treating Gentile believers like second class citizens in the Church. So he has to be reamed out by Paul to get back on track (see Galatians 2).
The point is, bishops are quite capable of not understanding what they themselves teach and can take years to really grasp the inscape of the Tradition. I think this is what has happened in the US bishops’ implementation of the Church’s social teaching in the wake of Vatican II. They made a good start but, like Peter, caved to political pressures and got off track. Their blind devotion to making abortion their obsessive focus at the expense of everything else made them vulnerable to being lackeys of the GOP. My hope is that the leadership, first of Francis and now of Leo, will help them figure out the consequences of that obsession and recover the Council’s championship of a Consistent Life Ethic and fight the cynical use of the unborn as human shields for Cult naked aggression against the least of these.
Advertisement
15 Responses
One of the more annoying thing about some Bishops is their fawning over the Trump Administration. The gushing praise and adulation of Trump by some Bishops is nauseating.
Bishop Robert Barron cannot say enough good things about the Trump Administration. It’s revolting to hear a Bishop who is such an unabashed fanboy of the great pumpkin,
What ON EARTH came over Bishop Barron?
A cautionary tale indeed.
(I keep telling myself that he is just a deep undercover double agent.)
He was critical of Democrats at Trump’s State of the Union for not applauding enthusiastically enough. Shades of North Korea. All must applaud “Dear Leader” with great enthusiasm! Does he realize what a sycophant he has become?
Honestly, I think that dual nature of both being insightful in one moment and then tripping over themselves by failing to live up their own standard in the next, is simply part of what it means to be human. The Founding Fathers, with their proclamation of all men being created equal, followed by their allowance of slavery comes to mind.
Coincidentally, both bishops and Founding Fathers are human beings. 🙂
Yes. Then why should we listen to them about anything?
Yes, I know; its just that I find it hard to quantify the influence of the Holy Spirit when their actions, both good and bad, fall within normal human parameters. I know that attributing insight to the Holy Spirit is kind of baked in to Catholicism and all, but its just that as an outsider who does not adhere that particular belief, I’m particularly wary of any device humans can use to grant themselves unquestionable authority. in any context.
I personally prefer things to stand or fall on their own merits, and I feel like the very concept of a “Holy Spirit that protects from error”, kind of short-circuits that process, you know?
Precisely what the Faith does not do is grant “unquestionable authority” to bishops or even the Pope. They are measured against the Tradition and when they contradict it they are wrong. Rare indeed are the teachings of the Church that are infallible and irreformable.
@Mark Shea:
You said:
“Precisely what the Faith does not do is grant “unquestionable authority” to bishops or even the Pope. They are measured against the Tradition and when they contradict it they are wrong. Rare indeed are the teachings of the Church that are infallible and irreformable.”
But that’s kind of my point: as long as they align with the Tradition, they are beyond reproach.
Look, I think the Church is just flat out wrong when it comes to homosexuality. But to admit and correct such a thing, would harm its reputation and undermine its authority among the faithful, so I don’t think it will, no matter what the Bishops and the Pope might think about it in their hearts.
So where might you see the “Holy Spirit” at play, I just see human prejudice, fueled by human arrogance and kept in place by human pride. I also see the rest of the world suffering the consequences of having such institutionalized bigotry entrenched in our society.
I think that Catholics like yourself and Rebecca Hamilton, who have spoken favorably about civil unions at some point, understand at some level the reasons for the pushback from a civil rights perspective. However, I also get the impression that the reason such like-minded Catholics cannot bring themselves to make, what seems to me and others, like the obvious logical and moral step, is their adherence and fidelity to the Tradition.
Its as if in this particular instance, the “Holy Spirit” and the resulting Tradition is serving as shackles for their conscience.
Anyways, I know I kind of went off on a different tangent, but like I said, I’m particularly wary of anything that allows humans set themselves up as an unassailable authority, even if its by proxy.
@3vil5triker
I understand your skepticism – truly. It’s a difficult question. And I suppose it comes down to faith. After all, I think the very idea of Tradition is something Protestants reject outright too.
But let’s say we grant the premise — for argument’s sake — that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and protects it from error in matters of faith and morals. If that’s true, wouldn’t the constant redefinition of those teachings to suit the culture or individual conscience be more of a red flag?
In that light, staying faithful to Tradition — especially in moral matters, and even under pressure from the wider society — seems a more credible sign of being guided by something higher than ourselves, rather than simply conforming to popular opinion.
It reminds me of Chesterton’s line: “The Church is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.”
@Sean Werthen:
The Church adapts itself to suit the times and culture quite frequently. Its actually quite standard fare for them to do so in matters of liturgy, iconography and modesty norms. Also in matters of governance, economics and the use of force by the state, rather than pushing for specific policies, the Church offers guiding principles, for people to then adapt and use within their specific cultural context.
In contrast, you’ll notice that when the Church decides to use a different approach and make specific policy prescriptions, with universal applicability and without making allowance for cultural or individual circumstances, they end up causing a lot of friction and pushback, and oftentimes just get dismissed entirely.
A prime example of this is the Church’s position on artificial contraception. This idea that couples are supposed to roll the dice with their fertility every time, without regard for their unique and individual situations, is simply unsustainable; so much so, that its treated universally as a joke, even by most Catholics.
This is something that could be easily fixed and amended by the Church, but it won’t. Why? Because the “Holy Spirit” can’t contradict itself.
You see, the problem people have is not the change itself, but the “how” and “why” of the change. And if the actual reason why you can’t change something is because you’ve staked your reputation and credibility on never admitting you were ever completely wrong about anything, then that’s just not going to cut it for most people.
@3vil5triker:
You’re right that the Church often adapts to the times and culture in areas like liturgy, modesty norms, and governance. (The shift in teaching on the death penalty immediately springs to mind.)
I realise now that my earlier comment may have caused some confusion, and I apologise for that.
When I said that constant change would be more of a red flag — given the Church’s claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit — I was actually referring to its core doctrines or dogmas: those infallibly defined, unchangeable teachings on faith and morals. I did not intend to refer to the broader categories of discipline or ‘prudential judgment,’ which, as you noted, do evolve over time.
Thanks for the clarity and insight — I’ve really appreciated it. I do sometimes wonder if the lines between doctrine and discipline can seem a little blurred.
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.”
—Matthew 23:2–3
2,000 years later and nothing’s changed! 😂
If Dems weren’t so openly hateful of the unborn and the family then more people may come around. I mean it doesnt get much worse than having free abortions outside your main event.
The Democrats are not perfect,but they are not lying, gutless cowards like most Republicans in Congress. The Republican women are psychos and the men are eunuchs. Why can’t the Republicans in Congress tell the great pumpkin to go to Hell? Cowards.