Editor’s note: This article is the first in a new feature category titled “From the Archives,” which will, as the name indicates, be pieces from CWR’s extensive archives. It seems fitting that this first essay, which appeared forty years ago in the May 1995 issue of CWR, is by the late Dr. James Hitchcock, who died earlier this year. Dr. Hitchcock was a regular contributor to CWR over the years, and his many articles and books offered an exceptional analysis of Catholicism in the United States, especially in its liberal and radical forms.
————
• A young man applies to study for the priesthood and is interviewed by a committee whose chairman, a high-ranking diocesan official, asks him his “feelings” about the ordination of women. The candidate replies that the matter has been settled by the Holy Father. The chairman replies, “We’re not asking what the Pope thinks. We want to know how you feel about it.” The young man states simply that he accepts the Church’s teaching on the matter. He is subsequently informed that the committee has found him unsuitable for the priesthood. An indirect appeal to the bishop of the diocese brings the response that all candidates must be recommended by the screening committee.
• In another diocese, a young man enrolled in the seminary finds that a feminist nun has much influence in approving candidates for ordination and that she has identified him as “insensitive to the needs of women.” Once again, an indirect appeal to the bishop brings the response that he will not “interfere” in the workings of the seminary and that the candidate must somehow gain the nun’s support in order to qualify for ordination.
• In two dioceses, bishops hire lay editors for their diocesan newspapers—men known to be conservative in church matters. But as the new editors try to bring their respective papers into line with official Church teachings, protests mount, and before long, both are removed from their posts.
• Two dioceses introduce sex-education programs, which deviate from Catholic teaching on important points, bringing protests from parents. In both cases, new bishops promote the directors of the respective programs to even more important positions in the local hierarchy.
• A lay woman is appointed “pastoral minister” in a parish where no priest is available. She soon begins wearing priestly vestments while conducting Communion services and openly announces her desire to be ordained.
• A bishop issues a pastoral letter on the state of women in the Church, which, while stopping short of calling for their ordination, employs an unwavering feminist perspective that describes women as systematically oppressed by both Church and society.
• A bishop appoints as his diocese’s chief representative on “women’s issues” a woman known to be critical of Catholic teaching not only concerning the ordination of women but of celibacy and various aspects of sexual morality as well. She openly talks about having “enlightened” local priests on these matters. Complaints to the bishop are ignored.
Mere matters of opinion?
Many worse vignettes could be collected to show the precarious state of American Catholicism. What makes these items especially significant is that in each case the problems occurred under bishops known to be “conservative” and identified as part of John Paul II’s “counter-reformation” or “restoration.”
The inadequacy of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” for ecclesiastical issues has often been acknowledged, but they have become so convenient that, if properly understood, they are as useful as any for briefly indicating the divisions which now plague the Church. Yet the casual way in which these divisions are accepted itself ought to be shocking, indicating as it does that questions of fundamental belief have been easily relegated to the status of mere partisan opinions, on which Catholics may legitimately take different positions.
With very few exceptions, “conservative” bishops do not go beyond what is strictly mandated by official Church teaching or policy. Almost all of them permit altar girls in their dioceses, and some did so even before Rome authorized the practice. Almost none is a strong devotee of the Latin Mass.
Enshrining “liberal” and “conservative” even with respect to bishops in effect means giving legitimacy to positions which actively diverge from one or another official Church teaching, which are reduced to opinions or matters of taste, almost to matters of temperament—some people move faster than others and are more comfortable with change.
Although it has not been recognized, the roots of liberalism among American bishops actually date to the period immediately after the Second Vatican Council, when legendary episcopal giants like Cardinal Francis J. Spellman of New York were still in office. With few exceptions, such prelates themselves showed signs of post-conciliar confusion. Often, they did little to clarify this confusion for others, or they acted in what seemed like quixotic and inconsistent ways, imposing strong sanctions against certain kinds of deviations while blandly tolerating others, which were even worse.
The Council and the crisis
The great failure of the older generation of bishops was their failure to gain control of the post-conciliar process of education. All over the United States, interpreters of “renewal” arose to skew the meaning of the Council in numerous ways, a process which only grew worse over time. Few indeed were the bishops who attempted—even in their own dioceses, much less nationally—to establish an authentic program of education in the “new Church.”
The result was that, over the next decades, Church officials on all levels—from bishops themselves to kindergarten teachers—were systematically inducted into a view of “renewal” which was increasingly at odds with official teaching and with the actual words of the Council. By 1975, if not before, the Church in the United States had lost perhaps the majority of its “middle management” to stronger or milder degrees of dissent, as most bishops watched passively and even approvingly.
The storm of dissent which followed the birth-control encyclical in 1968 was a crucial moment whose opportunities were quickly lost. Apparently, the American bishops made a collective decision that they would not try systematically to educate their people in the teachings of the encyclical, and dissent thereby gained immense credibility. (The issue was shrewdly exploited by certain theologians precisely because it had direct relevance to most lay people.)
Common sense would have dictated that, faced with massive dissent from official teachings, bishops would have made every effort to identify the core of Catholics, clerical and lay, who accepted those teaching, given them every encouragement, and used that core as a base from which to reach out to others. Instead, the American bishops seem to have made the collective decision almost to ignore such people, who were soon left to fend for themselves, as practically all pastoral efforts were turned towards those who dissented. Now, however, the purpose of those pastoral efforts was not to bring back lost sheep but to reexamine the very concept of being “lost,” opening the possibility that the lost sheep were in fact the new leaders of the flock.
In deciding not to support except verbally, the American bishops made the fundamental strategic mistake, which has been the undoing of liberal Protestantism. For over a century, liberal Protestantism has steadily surrendered Christian positions deemed incredible by a particular historical age, the better to protect the core of the faith. But in each generation, more such surrenders are demanded, until there is finally nothing left, and surrender itself becomes the chief expectation which liberals must meet.
Thus by giving up on birth control, the bishops of 1968 probably thought they were preserving their credibility on other questions. But inevitably, there has been a steady erosion of every distinctively Catholic moral position. Finally, in 1995, a survey showed that a solid majority of Catholics do not accept the Church’s teaching about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The strategy of tolerating selective dissent can only have such results, and the area of dissent can only continue to widen.
The phantom renewal
In an episode which still remains mysterious, through most of the 1970s, the Holy See appointed bishops in the United States who were at least tolerant of dissent and in some cases personally sympathetic to it, a pattern of appointments which continued several years into the pontificate of John Paul II.
Beginning around 1980, this pattern seemed to be reversed, as word circulated that the men being made bishops were orthodox, tough-minded, and charged with the task of salvaging authentic Catholicism from the near chaos of spurious “renewal.” Conservatives were buoyed by this new spirit for most of the decade, and only towards its end did it begin to dawn on informed people that somehow the promised counter-reformation was not taking place.
In dioceses where a conservative bishop has followed a conservative predecessor, there have usually been few problems. However, such cases have been rare because during the 1970s, it was clearly Vatican policy to replace conservative bishops with liberal ones. Hence, the only solidly conservative dioceses are those whose ordinaries happened to be in office from prior to 1970, well into the 1980s.
In the largest number of dioceses, therefore, conservative bishops have followed bishops who either were themselves liberal or were tolerant of liberalism, and in perhaps a majority of those cases the conservative bishop has not seriously disturbed the situation which he inherited.
The perils of moving cautiously
The dynamics of this process are easy to comprehend. Whatever his intentions, a new bishop quickly discovers how tightly the liberals control the diocesan machinery—the school office, the priests’ senate, the office of social justice, and other bureaus—and he realizes that dislodging such people will be no easy task and will be unpleasant.
He thus resolves to proceed slowly until he has a firm understanding of the situation, comes to know his personnel, and devises an effective strategy. Very quickly, he is pressed by conservatives, mainly lay people, about abuses, but he declines even to admit that these are abuses, pending the time when he can see a way of correcting them.
But time rapidly passes. Soon, the bishop realizes that, while he had entered his see with some apprehension over the problems he would face, his tenure has in fact been pleasant. At some point, his chancellor may say something like, “Candidly, bishop, there were people here who expected the worst when you were appointed, but everyone is pleasantly surprised. You have confounded your critics.”
Given such reinforcement, it would be a determined bishop indeed who would proceed to make the sweeping changes necessary for authentic renewal. Human beings are capable of finding endless excuses for putting off unpleasant tasks, and the bishop tells himself that he must have the freedom to accomplish his mission in his own way and in his own time.
Meanwhile, however, the conservatives in the diocese, who had perhaps always been unrealistic in their expectations, are becoming increasingly impatient. Of necessity, given his unwillingness to act, the bishop finds himself defending things that he knows are indefensible, and he also finds himself becoming annoyed at the people who seem not to understand his problems and who demand that he act instantly. At some point, his chancellor may smile wryly and say, “Now, bishop, you can see what we have had to put up with from those people all these years.”
Step by step, through a process
which is largely unconscious until almost completed, the bishop is recruited as an ally by the very people whose practices he was supposed to correct. Unless he is cynical, he cannot continue to defend things which he knows are wrong; hence, he eventually comes to believe that alleged abuses are not abuses at all and that the problems in the diocese stem from those who “do not accept the reforms of Vatican II.” To the degree that the bishop has a lingering bad conscience over his failure to act where action is needed, his discomfort is projected onto his conservative critics.
The strategy of waiting a decent interval before acting has things to recommend it. But it is worth noting that it runs counter to established management practice in government and industry, where each new chief executive has his “hundred days” or his “honeymoon,” during which he makes sweeping changes of personnel in order to install people who accept his own agenda. An administrator who continues in office, people suspected to be out of sympathy with his objectives are rarely offered gratitude. Instead, his inaction is correctly sensed as weakness, and his subordinates begin acting accordingly.
The liberal bishops appointed during the 1970s invariably followed that practice, replacing conservatives in the chancery office with their own people. But many conservative bishops have not seen fit to do the reverse, presumably in the belief that administrative continuity insures the peace of the diocese. Thus, old policies continue almost unaltered under the new regime. (In one diocese, a conservative bishop continued in office his predecessor’s vicar general, and a local priest observes: “Everyone knows it is far more dangerous to offend the vicar general than to offend the bishop.”)
Clericalism on the rise
None of this is understandable without recognizing a fact that has been systematically obscured for three decades—the post-conciliar Church is more clerical than it used to be, not less.
In many ways, the clericalism of the pre-conciliar Church was tempered by the very legalism which liberals denounce—priests and bishops had authority, which was carefully circumscribed by Canon Law, and they were not free, for the most part, to act capriciously. In the “open,” anti-legalistic Church, however, clergy are often free to impose their own theologies, their own liturgies, their own moralities, their own ecclesiologies, on defenseless parishes, since there is no effective way by which the authenticity of renewal can be judged, nor any effective way by which priests can be made to conform to Church law. The Church is also more clerical now because a large number of lay people have, in effect, been inducted into the ranks of the clergy, as diocesan or parish bureaucrats.
One of the great mistakes made even by the “old” bishops of the conciliar period was to accept the notion of professionalism almost without quibble. Thus, bishops can usually be intimidated into silence by the reminder that they lack the professional credentials to judge the work of educators, canonists, or liturgists. These professionals, soon after the Council organized themselves into national bodies which in effect control the terms of the discussion. In many dioceses, there is an endless parade of speeches and workshops in which certified “experts” are imported to speak to local people. Usually, the bishop, even if conservative, makes at least a token appearance at such gatherings and gives them his formal blessing. Seldom does he attempt to stop them or even seriously moderate them.
When they acknowledge the obvious evidence that Catholics reject official teachings on a large scale, bishops usually point to the secular culture as the cause (for the decline of religious vocations, for example). And rarely do they seem to recognize that official Church organs—the schools, the Catholic press, officially sponsored conferences, even the pulpit—have themselves been the most effective channels for disseminating dissent. Since the Council, Catholics have, in a sense, been reprogrammed into a new kind of faith, and against this new program, formal reiterations of official teachings make little headway.
Bishops judge that their disciplinary powers cannot be exercised sweepingly, and there are agencies over which they have little control, such as Catholic colleges. But, short of actually imposing sanctions on dissenters, bishops can at least publicly contradict them, which they also seldom do. Thus, even if the local Catholic college is a center of organized dissent, the bishop almost always attends its major public ceremonies, where he invariably expresses gratitude that the diocese enjoys such a vibrant center of Catholic learning. Catholics who wonder if what they are hearing from those channels is authentic Catholic teaching will seldom be enlightened by the bishop. To all appearances, the bishop and the local dissenters share the same faith.
By contrast, there is no such thing as “lay opinion,” since lay people are divided in dozens of different ways. Even if there were, there is no established organ through which lay opinion could be expressed.
Thus, when a bishop enters a diocese, he already knows that he does not have to pay attention to aggrieved lay people, while he does have to defer to his priests’ senate or to the religious communities in the diocese. For all practical purposes, when it comes to the bishop’s formulation of administrative policies, such groups are the Church. Put another way, authoritarian pre-conciliar bishops were free to disregard clerical or religious sensibilities if they chose, while modern bishops are not. In neither case does the laity have an effective voice, nor does a priest or religious who is outside the “mainstream” of local organized clericalism.
The unspoken compromise
What precisely bishops fear is not clear. Sometimes they probably feel constrained by the scarcity of personnel; priests and religious are in short supply, and the bishop cannot afford to offend the few he has. But this is a self-perpetuating problem since, as we noted above, conservative young men are sometimes discouraged or actually prevented from becoming priests by the existing diocesan bureaucracy.
In some ways, having a liberal diocese presided over by a bishop known to be conservative is better for the liberal cause than having a bishop of their own, since the conservative bishop gives a mantle of respectability to liberal policies. Complaining laity can be even more easily dismissed, on the grounds that “even our conservative bishop does not make them happy.” Often, there is an unspoken compromise; the bishop says inspiringly orthodox things on public occasions, even as diocesan policies move in quite different directions.
Conservative laypeople find it practically impossible to make a credible stand for orthodoxy in a liberal diocese, precisely because their opinions are defined as merely that—opinions. Although the Pope and the bishop may both state orthodox teachings clearly, in particular situations, the bishop seldom allows himself to identify lapses from that orthodoxy. Thus, conservative lay people protesting diocesan practices always come to be regarded as cranks, since the bishop himself does not recognize the abuses they see.
Allies in the media
For all their talk of “pluralism,” liberals understand very well that a Church divided against itself cannot stand, which is why, wherever they’re in power, they move relentlessly to push conservatives to the margins of the community, a move with which conservative bishops sometimes cooperate.
Indispensable to the success of the liberal strategy have been the media. Before the Council was even over, liberals were using the media’s insatiable appetite for religious controversy, their uniformly liberal viewpoint, and their eagerness to publicize internal church conflicts in such a way as to force bishops’ hands. The strategy has continued unabated over thirty years, to the point where the threat of hostile media often need not even be uttered—everyone is fully aware of it at all times.
Bishops notorious for their tough authoritarianism were, soon after the Council, the unfamiliar experience of being pilloried in the media. It was a lesson the next generation of bishops learned all too well, and often bishops now seem motivated primarily out of fear of unfavorable publicity if, for example, a key diocesan official is replaced.
Conservative secular journalists have cynically invented the “Strange New Respect Award,” which the media bestow on conservative public figures willing to betray their principles. Every bishop, whether or not he hankers after the award, knows that it exists. (Thus, in one diocese, a bishop with a national reputation for conservatism before he was appointed now enjoys regular encomia from the local media, even as he actively cooperates in portraying conservative Catholics as unbalanced fanatics.)
There are elements in American culture, notably the expectation that bishops and other “community leaders” will be affable men who “fit in” with the local scene, which strongly reinforce the natural human tendency to avoid hard decisions. Particular conditions in a given diocese do the same. No doubt also, the Holy See has sometimes been disappointed at the inaction of men it has appointed. It is not possible to understand the phenomenon of the inactive bishop, however, without understanding that the Vatican also bears its share of the responsibility.
The Vatican’s role
Italians can almost be said to have invented diplomacy. It was an art which came to perfection in Italy during the Renaissance, none practicing it more skillfully than the papacy itself. That venerable tradition has continued into the present and, despite being sometimes denounced by liberals as a form of centralized control, it often serves liberal interests in the Church.
The art of diplomacy can be defined simply as the attempt to gain one’s objectives by skillful manipulation of one’s opponents, through strategies which those opponents often do not even comprehend until they are accomplished. But if war is indeed the continuation of diplomacy by other means, then the frequency of wars in human history shows how often diplomacy fails.
Diplomacy tends to be especially ineffective in situations where ideology rules, where contending parties have beliefs that they consider matters of principle and about which they have passionate convictions, and where they see nothing less than the entire well-being of the world at stake. That is the situation in the Church today, involving contending groups who sharply disagree about morality, doctrine, and the nature of the Church itself.
Over the centuries, the Holy See has often had to resort to diplomacy because it lacked military and political power. (“How many divisions does the pope have?”) Such diplomacy even had to be used in internal Church matters, where secular governments exercised a strong influence over the appointment of bishops, for example.
It is ironic, therefore, and discouraging, that in the modern democratic era, when the Church enjoys the blessings of complete independence from political control, such diplomacy still seems necessary, now often concentrated on internal ecclesiastical matters. It appears, for example, that the pope is not free simply to appoint bishops as he sees fit, but that an elaborate process of consultation, of checks and balances, takes place, after which successful candidates are often people who have no highly placed enemies.
The Holy See now appears to treat national episcopal conferences and the numerous religious orders almost as foreign powers. Scrupulous correctness is observed at all times, formal verbiage masks barely hidden disagreements, and above all, potential “incidents” are avoided. Conservative Catholics cannot be encouraged to take strong stands for orthodoxy at the local level, just as a government cannot permit its citizens living in foreign countries to offend local laws. (Thus liberals complained bitterly for ten years about the Holy See’s appearing to listen to complaints from conservative American Catholics—whereupon the Holy See appears to have stopped listening to those complaints.)
This endemic practice of diplomacy within the Church has yielded small results. Abuses have been tolerated not for the sake of unity but merely for the appearance of unity, which itself soon becomes an overriding concern.
Style over substance
As the Vatican began appointing apparently more conservative bishops after 1980, it also appears to have developed a profile of an ideal bishop which describes a majority of John Paul II’s appointments personally orthodox and pious but low-keyed, cautious, and “non-confrontational.” By inference, the Vatican’s strategy for reforming dioceses is to appoint bishops who will act with such caution and skill that change will come about in time—without people even being fully aware of it. Entrenched liberal elements will not resist, nor will the media interfere, because they do not even understand what is happening.
But in an environment governed by ideology, this scenario really cannot play itself out. Liberals are quick to notice even small “backward” steps by their bishop, and they test him by relentlessly pushing ahead with their agenda, so that he must either confront them or surrender. Even if this were not the case, the strategy of painless, uncontroversial, almost unnoticed reform is one which even the most brilliant diplomat would have trouble effecting.
Thus conservative bishops who prove to be disappointments in their dioceses often are so because they were chosen by the Holy See for certain personal qualities which were bound to produce that result. The ancient maxim, “suaviter in modo, fortiter in re”—”smoothly in manner, firmly in substance”—easily degenerates into a preoccupation with “modus” at the expense of “res.”
Once appointed, a conservative bishop finds other obstacles besides those in the diocese itself. Despite fifteen years of episcopal appointments by John Paul II, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops remained essentially a liberal body, in which determined conservatives have difficulty merely staving off serious defeats, much less winning substantial victories. Once again, it requires a particularly resolute kind of man to accept the status of a defined minority within a body that seems to place great importance on the spirit of belonging. If nothing else, a new bishop is likely to discover quickly that he will be consistently on the losing side unless he moderates his positions substantially.
The considerations that dictate such moderation are not insignificant, which is why the Holy See itself appears to value them highly. Bad publicity never helps the Church, especially when it highlights bitter internal divisions. Ideally, the bishop should command the loyalty and respect of his whole diocese and not be a focus of controversy. The spirit of collegiality dictates that the NCCB not simply be disregarded.
But a disinterested secular student of Catholicism must conclude that few religions in the history of the world have placed more emphasis on doctrinal purity, liturgical correctness, and moral authenticity than has the Catholic Church. As someone has pointed out, the Anglican tradition has been that of tolerating almost endless degrees of liturgical and doctrinal diversity, in order to avoid schism, while the Catholic tradition has been almost the reverse.
If, at almost all times in the history of the Church, a concern for orthodoxy has been paramount, the contemporary Church has an eerie feel about it precisely because of the absence of that concern. At the diocesan and national levels, it is possible to raise questions about pastoral strategy, administrative competence, economic feasibility, human sensitivity, awareness of injustice, and numerous other things, but never about orthodoxy. The very word, and its opposite—”heresy”—is seldom uttered, and even conservative bishops give the impression that they are embarrassed to be caught thinking in those terms. (Thus, heterodox individuals may sometimes be removed from sensitive positions by giving reasons which everyone knows are spurious, and this brings even greater recrimination.)
Often, episcopal inaction in the face of obvious abuses is explained by the principle of collegiality—much as the bishop might like to act, he cannot do so unilaterally but only through consensus. But the inadequacy of that explanation can be exposed by the application of the Ku Klux Klan test—if a priest’s senate, for example, were controlled by overt racists, the bishop would act firmly and swiftly, without regard for protocol. When he chooses not to do so, it is because he does not believe that the issues (doctrinal purity, liturgical correctness, loyalty to the Holy See) are sufficiently important.
Heroic prudence?
The governing virtue in American episcopal circles at present appears to be prudence, which is a legitimate virtue but, it should be noted, a virtue which exists only in relation to other virtues. (As the poet Roy Campbell jibed about neo-classicism in literature, “I see the bit and bridle alright, but where’s the bloody horse?”) Prudence seeks to achieve goals in a way that does not violate other virtues. It is not simply a synonym for caution.
In the entire history of the Church, probably not a single saint was ever canonized for the conspicuous virtue of prudence, and many were (from a worldly standpoint) quite imprudent. This applies to canonized bishops, many of whom were martyrs and almost all of whom were involved in severe conflicts of various kinds. (When St. Charles Borromeo began to reform the diocese of Milan, the inmates of a particular monastery actually hired an assassin who shot at the bishop during Vespers.)
By the logic of prudence as it is now understood, the Church should not have canonized John Fisher, the only bishop who withstood Henry VIII, but instead Stephen Gardiner and Cuthbert Tunstall —men who, although not devoid of principle, nonetheless managed to survive the ecclesiastical changes of three reigns. (Although the fact is well known that all but one English bishop conformed to Henry VIII in 1534, much less well known is the fact that in 1559 no English bishop conformed to Elizabeth I, and all were deposed, including Tunstall-a fact which demonstrates the feasibility of thoroughly reforming a national hierarchy.)
Today’s bishops may feel understandably discouraged at being asked to correct conditions, which have gone unchecked for three decades, and whose roots are often traceable to precisely the generation of allegedly strong prelates at the time of the Council. But this illustrates a homey principle—every problem, from a moral flaw to a leaky roof, merely gets worse if not addressed. Despite the claim that he is a rigidly counter-reforming pope, these problems are more intractable now than they were when John Paul II ascended the papal throne, and they will only continue to worsen if not addressed.
Of one American bishop, a newspaper has said that he provoked more controversy during his first year in office than his predecessor did in twenty. While no one ought to welcome controversy for its own sake, the grim realities of the situation dictate that similar things will be said about any bishop who sincerely tries to fulfill his divine commission.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
It has been nearly 25 years since I read Michael Rose’s “Goodbye, Good Men.” At the time, I thought “this can’t possibly all be true” but time has shown it was probably worse. To make Dr. Hitchcock’s point I present exhibit A – Bishop Strickland – the only bishop to attend the protest at Dodger stadium. Where were the voices of fellow bishops when he was sacked – crickets. I place a good bit of the problem on the long duration priests and professional “church people” spend in the cesspool of academia. They can’t avoid picking up the stink.
Difference between the damaging policies of the liberal from conservative bishops at the time was incidental. That’s because the outcome of feminists and liberals having final say on ordinations was similar. A bishop who feigns faithfulness and promotes his popularity is both narcissist and moral coward.
A reason why so many homosexually oriented candidates were selected and the more manly, sincerely motivated candidates were refused. Many bishops were chosen because they were previously chancery personnel who learned how to be ‘company men’. Careerists rather than Apostles. An indicator that so few bishops actually travel around the diocese and preach doctrine and morality to their priests and the laity.
I have worked all my life in bureaucracies, public and private.
Once a particular viewpoint attains a “critical mass”, it seeks to advance those who share it. If a viewpoint gains control, it will do so ruthlessly and to the exclusion of the putative mission. It’s part of Libido Dominandi, where people don’t want to be debated or disputed and they are interesting in expanding their petty little fiefdoms.
And, if not “ruthlessly”, then this:
Men without chests (C.S. Lewis) =
The secular silence of “get-along-go-along”=
the ecclesial silence of “fraternal collegiality”=
vanilla “fraternity”?
About possibly vanilla “fraternity”…
or, Thomas More’s imagined commonwealth in his “Utopia” (translated literally as “not-place”)–proposed, here, as a hybrid of the postmodern world and even Marxism, together with premodern Islam? Both of which deny real revelation, and both of which then reduce inborn human reason to rationalization (“liberty, equality and…fraternity,” replacing paternity–as now in men without chests), at the expense of the complete and underlying natural law?
Here, Utopia, with bracketed [ ] inserts:
More’s Utopia “was a state guided by the unaided human reason [!]: More followed this idea as far as he could, and showed us what the results might be of reason divorced from revelation [….] private property is utterly abolished [….] the marriage of priests [and Islamic egalitarianism except for imams], divorce for ‘intolerable offensiveness of disposition’ [no-fault divorce, serial bigamy, Islamic polygamy] euthanasia for the aged, and inciting the assassination of an enemy king [….jihad] liquidation [‘connotes other horrors’…Hitler’s final solution, the linked abortion culture and, again, Islamic jihad?] [….] Nowhere indeed has the great doctrine of religious toleration been expounded with greater force or fullness than in the Utopia [….] In Utopia it was ‘lawful for every man to follow what religion he chose [subjectivized religion, or mutual dhimmitude],’ but, anyone who, in trying to persuade [or even educate] others to adopt his beliefs, contended too vehemently in expressing his views, was to be punished by exile or enslavement’ [or branded alongside ‘hate speech,’ Shari’a capital punishment for ‘blasphemy’]” (E.E. Reynolds, St Thomas More, 1958).
How do abuses under More’s “Utopia,” as an “imagined commonwealth” based on reason only, differ from abuses under a multicultural and therefore somewhat indifferent “fraternity”? What is long-term fraternity—if and when totally divorced from historical revelation—the Incarnation? “Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself [!] and makes his supreme calling clear” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
In certain parts of the “private sector” anything that is not producing profits is called or labelled “yet another rabbit hole”.
Sometimes said in the open -you can see who’s arguing what. Sometimes just held to confidentially and in denials.
It gets more deeply arbitrary when the (good) activity is actually helping protect profitability or is needed to secure a future profitability.
And of course not everything has to be profitable to require doing.
Here the clergy don’t seem to address it very well. Maybe there is a fear of concluding that anybody is greedy. Yet greedy is not the only failing disposition.
I’m sure you understand, Pitchfork, there is always important work that needs due attention and often the process can be quite consuming AND unrewarding.
Very true. Then that mindset becomes entrenched in the culture of the organization or institution. Over time, it becomes toxic.
In tribute to James Hitchcock PhD bishops should definitely make more noise, cause more ‘trouble’ by addressing the reality of faith and morals.
Wondering, here, if the new bishops are being formed to deal with the long-standing problem of wallpaper clericalism, identified already many decades ago by James Hitchcock https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/09/11/conservative-bishops-liberal-results/
The Hitchcock factor, from a layman…very synodal! Does the seminar offer guidance—and support from above—for quick and masculine counterinsurgency when needed within the chancery offices and dioceses?
Masculine counterinsurgency. Adroitly put.
No such thing as Conservative or Liberal Catholic. Those are terms peculiar to politics – not to matters of faith. You either accept and proclaim the full teachings of the Catholic faith or you do not. If you do not, you’re an apostate. This is NOT protestantism.
Those terms may be peculiar to politics, but they are inadequate. Political sentiments are not unidimensional and attempting to portray a person’s sentiment on a line is inevitably inadequate and distortive.
I doubt that the church ever has or ever will be in a static state. It is in constant change. Its’ problem is that it is composed of sinful, selfish people. But we must remember that it IS the Church of God and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It WILL preserve the truth, and it WILL continue to bring people to the saving grace of Christ. It is the Barque of Peter and it will never sink no matter how bad the storm or how inept the Captain or how mutinous the crew. Our duty is to stay on board and promote harmony and love.
James Connor writes, “Our duty is to stay on board and promote harmony and love”.
And, to proclaim the full Gospel truth as taught by the Catholic Church.
What is this thing called “constant change”? Cardinal Newman had this to say about truth, as not to be fully displaced by “harmony and love”:
Newman is often quoted out of context with this: “In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” But, the context is the preceding remark: “[‘a philosophy or belief’] enters upon a strange territory; points of controversy alter their bearing; parties rise and fall around its dangers and hopes appear in new relations; and old principles reappear under new forms. It changes [!] with them in order to remain the same [!!]” (“Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” Ch. II, Secs I-II).
Harmony and love between the captain and crew of the Titanic don’t count for much if the synodal consensus remains scripted and the ship’s heading beyond question.
James Connor: Remnants of Kumbaya Catholicism of the 60’s and 70’s. It was superficial cheap sentimentality then as it is today. The St. Louis Jesuits are long since gone and forgotten about. They did their damage and vacated the scene. Unfortunately they have been replaced by an even more venal sort of Jesuit.
Have no idea what I reserve the truth means or encompasses. If it means what is written I the catechism. Ok. But in practice I’d say it does not preserve the truth. Far from it
Thank you James Connor for your words in truth!
I am reminded of the recent gospel reading of the splinter and beam in the eye. The people of God do they offer up, do they pray, do they adore the Lord, that’s our duty in the parish. What did St Catherine of Sienna say: If you become what you should be you will set the world on fire. Let us fervently pray for Pope Leo IV and for unity in the Church to bring about the truth and love of Christ.
Hitchcock does not mention money as a major influence on bishops but i think it is a major factor affecting their decisions. As the saying goes: Money talks. A bishop needs money to run his diocese but if he becomes too outspoken, he risks losing financial support from the wealthy laity. Tax Exempt Status is also a major factor, and it effectively discourages a bishop from becoming too “political” but it is precisely in the “political” realm where so many hot button issues develop. So, unless your politics are left-wing, which gives you protection from the government and the leftwing media, you can be subjected to a loss of income and demonized in the press which can cause a decline in popular support, and which can result in the priests of the diocese turning against you.
There is no better example of the influence of money than Germany. Germany bishops are paid by the government at a salary of $131,000 to $189,000. https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/02/28/germanys-pay-to-pray-regime/ As the article goes on to say “In short, the German clergy may have a real financial interest in keeping the flock happy so they continue to pay that tax and not drop out.”
Richard Cross: If what you write is accurate, then we no longer have a Christocentric Church which follows Someone Who said He is the Truth. Instead, we have a Money-centric church which is headed for perdition.
I found it helpful to read Dr. Hitchcock’s essay, in that it helped clarify what I think is a general failure to understand and diagnose the dynamics of the episcopal pathology that Dr. Hitchcock mistakenly calls “Conservative Bishops, Liberal Results.”
Bishops who do not conserve the faith, but instead are derelict by allowing “liberal bureaucrats(i.e. unfaithful agents) to govern their seminaries and dioceses are by definition NOT CONSERVATIVE…because they conserve nothing…they are CONFORMISTS.
I think that the correct description of the Church hierarchy groups are: (1) Apostates (aka liberals), (2) Conformists (who Dr. Hitchcock calls “Conservative”), and (3) Faithful Shepherds. I suppose that the first 2 groups make up 80-90% of Bishops, and the faithful shepherds are 10-20%.
That’s the dynamics explaining the sex scandal, the financial scandal of the US Bishops running an illegal immigration network for BIG-NGO-CASH and calling it “charity,” LGBTQ Psychopath Parades in St. Peter’s Basilica, and 9 out of 10 cradle Catholics leaving the faith.
CONFORMISM = Lukewarm = “I Spew You Out of My Mouth.”
CiM: Aren’t you directly over the target! BOMBS AWAY!
The issue seems that there is a need to appoint Conservative Bishops who are unafraid of confrontation and actually have a spine. And who are not desperate to be “liked” to the degree that they will abandon their faithfulness to Christ’s teachings. I am very dubious that liberal priests will “quit” the priesthood because they are unhappy with a Conservative Bishop. And if they do–so what? What good have such priests been doing for the church or Truth? Further, many churches are so empty right now that consolidating a few parishes should not be a big deal. A smaller more faithful church sounds good to me.
The church has already lost several generations worth of credibility because of the clergy sex crisis. That being fueled in part by men who should have never been admitted to the priesthood at all, being gay, or never having made a true commitment to the chastity expected of a priest. The result, fleeing flocks of parishioners and bankrupt dioceses. Surely SOME of these liberal priests should have figured out from that, that liberalism is the path to destruction in the church? Rules were made for a reason. “Do your own thing” is no way to run a religion. The result will be empty pews.
Mostly, gentlemen, have the courage of your convictions and beliefs and let the chips fall where they may.
LJ: We don’t need conservative bishops. What we need are bishops who understand what is Truth and proclaim it boldly. What we need are bishops who are strong and secure in their masculinity. Not bishops who are effeminate, weak and underdeveloped males.
The synthesis of Catholicism with New World Order left us with Post-Conciliarism’s seemingly compromised men, their hands tied, on-board a pirate ship flying under the vatican flag?
The efforts to slow down Post-Conciliarism failed to prevent October 27 1986: Assisi prepared Fratelli Tuti?
I used to want “conservative” bishops myself until I realized that they were morbidly cautious, timid careerists, devoted to avoiding public controversy and placating progressive types who made a lot of noise and might affect Sunday collections, not to say their next promotion. Anyone seeking a clear and firm defense of the faith learned to look elsewhere.
Yes, if they actually have such convictions and beliefs.
While in seminary my ordinary wrote his STM on women’s ordination. When elected bishop (by JPII) he hoisted a conservative flag, recruited tons of orthodox vocations, and enjoyed being promoted to an Archbishop on the East coast where he did nothing but build a mansion and retire in place. And what can be said of all our so called conservative bishops who gave tacit approval of Bidens pro abortion executive orders? They’re all political and not the least bit prophetic.
They’re certainly not St. Thomas a’ Becket or St. John Fisher.