Good Catholics should know what is official
Church teaching and
what are matters for discussion and debate

Orthodox Catholics Sometimes Hurt the Cause

By Michael P. Orsi

NOTE: This is a reprint from the Aug-Sep 2003 issue of HPR

One of the things that I admire about liberals is their ability to unite to promote their common agenda. Perhaps it is endemic to their philosophical belief that everyone should be given enough space to express themselves. In the recent Democratic primary in New York, for example, Andrew Cuomo dropped out of the Governor’s race and gave his support to opponent Carl McCall. Though he was behind in the polls, he said, for what it’s worth, that he didn’t want to go negative and hurt the party’s chances of winning the November election. This sacrifice for the common good is not often the case among conservatives. The savage Bush-McCain primary and the lukewarm support tended by Senator McCain to the Bush campaign during the 2000 election are cases in point.

Unfortunately, however, the disparity in the willingness to sublimate the self for the achievement of the group’s goals does not end with politics. It is present and even to a greater degree in religion. When, for instance, is the last time there has been a squabble of consequence among the Church’s left wing? The liberal big tent seems to be able to accommodate a multitude of agendas: pro-homosexual rights, pro-women’s ordination, pro-choice politicians, liturgical experimentation in varying degrees, etc. Contrast this with the right wing, which continually seems to divide not on the defined matters of the faith or morals but usually on preferences that block other valid traditions and often lead to accusations of heterodoxy against those who differ.

How many times have prolife Catholics taken an all-or-nothing approach to a Catholic politician’s attempt to craft a policy that would limit abortion but falls short of an outright ban? How many splits have some legitimate liturgical options caused in the name of purity of worship in parish communities? How many times have orthodox Catholics had their loyalty questioned when they disagree with a prudential teaching of the Pope by those who equate the Catholic faith with papal cheerleading? The truth is too often!

There are four examples that come to mind that will highlight my point and will, I hope, garner greater, I must use that dastardly word, “tolerance” among orthodox Catholics for their own good.

Not too long ago a very orthodox pastor gave a homily on the story of the Canaanite woman in St. Matthew’s Gospel. The harshness of Jesus’response to the woman’s request to exorcise her daughter’s demons—”food is not meant for the dogs”—usually causes some discomfort and, too often, dubious explanations as to what he meant. The pastor said that “some modern biblical scholars do not believe that Jesus said this, but be that as it may, there is a deeper message, i.e., the Gentiles now share in salvation through faith.” At no point did he say these could not be the exact words of Jesus. After Mass he was attacked by a few people who believed his remarks were heretical since he had denied that Scripture records the exact words of Jesus. He referred them to Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, the Pontifical Biblical Commission and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. On hearing this last suggestion, they immediately identified it with the late Fr. Raymond Brown, S.S. and called him and the pastor modernist heretics. These people refused to even consider what modern scholars have to offer the rich Catholic scriptural tradition. Their personal preference for a more fundamentalist approach to the Bible has created a rift between their pastor and other members of the parish. Ignorance of the Church’s teaching regarding legitimate scriptural interpretation not only caused animosity within this orthodox parish but, to outsiders, also reinforced the myth that conservatives are sectarian and reactionary, which causes them not to be taken seriously in the modern academy.

Another example of orthodox Catholics attacking each other unjustly and unwisely erupted when an outstanding member of the American hierarchy compared the devoutly Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion that the death penalty is licit within the Catholic tradition to Catholics for Free Choice leader Frances Kissling’s opinion on abortion. In essence, Justice Scalia was being called a “cafeteria Catholic” and not in accord with Church teaching, thereby jeopardizing his soul and the souls of others.

The fact is that the Church makes no such claim that abortion and capital punishment are morally equivalent. Whereas there has been a constant tradition condemning abortion which is reaffirmed in the language of Evangelium Vitae (1995) by Pope John Paul II, capital punishment has long been accepted by the Church to be the right of the state for the protection of its citizens, to rehabilitate the criminals’ souls before death and to make retribution for the damage caused by the crime. Although the Pope strongly advises that he no longer sees capital punishment as necessary and cautions against it in the same encyclical, he does not outright condemn its use or those who are proponents of it. This is a prudential judgment of the Pope. No doubt because of his office as chief shepherd of the Church and his own insight into the ever diminishing regard for human life, the Pope’s teaching deserves careful consideration by all Catholics but it does not require strict adherence as does his teaching on abortion and euthanasia. If the Pope were able to put capital punishment on the level of nonfallible teaching, as is the case with abortion, he would have done so. However, the Pope is too good a theologian for that—he knows the Catholic tradition is bigger than he is.

There are those who think that every word the Holy Father speaks must be given assent in mind and heart. Even encyclicals which require this response demand only that we adhere to what the document says; therefore the tradition, words and context must be weighed carefully. Not everything in an encyclical holds the same weight. To attack the faith and morality of those who may legitimately disagree with the Pope on debatable issues does damage to the truth, which the orthodox Catholic should first and foremost defend. Papal cheerleading may have its place at papal audiences and Masses but not in serious debate. It delegitimizes those who are attempting to be faithful to the tradition and makes us suspect in ecumenical and secular circles. The orthodox Catholic must be careful not to confuse truth with opinion.

My next point goes to the recent sex scandals rocking the Church in America. Every thoughtful and informed person knows that the problem is not pedophilia but homosexuality. This has been of course one of the major complaints from the right wing for a long time. Nevertheless, some orthodox Catholics have become so outraged by the Church’s lack of attention to the problem and denial of how it undermines the priesthood that they have questioned the legitimacy of the sacramental orders conferred on homosexuals. This sentiment was even echoed by Vatican spokesman Joachin Navarro–Valls.

Recently, I wrote an article responding to the invalidity of this opinion. I stated that as long as the matter is male, with a correct intention of the candidate for holy orders, an ordaining bishop and the proper sacramental formula, the requirement for validity is not to be questioned. To deny this would jeopardize the sacramental system of the Church which depends on the “chain theory” or the direct descent of Orders from the Apostles by the laying on of hands. Not to acknowledge the valid orders of homosexuals would put us in a worse position than the Anglican Church, whose orders have been declared null and void by Rome due to a defect of form in the Ordinal of Edward VI. Since there undoubtedly have been many homosexual bishops and priests ordained in the 2000-year history of the Church, denying their validity would make the Anglican and Episcopal problem pale in comparison.

When I submitted the article for publication, three orthodox Catholic weekly papers turned it down. Two e–mailed me the message, “We do not support ordaining homosexuals.” Well, neither do I, but that was not the point. Some people’s outrage has caused them to sacrifice a great truth for a preference. Are orthodox Catholics opposed to telling the truth when it may go against their preference? We do not help the cause when we show ourselves to be partisans willing to silence the truth for our own agenda. Doesn’t this hurt the Church and marginalize our cause?

Lastly, anyone familiar with Catholic home schooling families cannot help to be impressed by their devotion to Christ and its Church. Nevertheless, even this community can find itself divided on issues not germane to orthodoxy. I was recently informed of a brouhaha that erupted in a parish between families because of a disagreement on the suitability of a video that the children of one family watched and discussed with the children of another family. The film was the cartoon “Shrek,” which was rated PG. It admittedly contained some mildly vulgar language and bathroom humor but was in no way immoral. However, the disapproving parents forbade their children to associate with the offending family. A debate erupted in the home schooling community which found its way into the parish, causing factions to form over what kind of movie viewing is appropriate for Catholic families. Eventually it became so bitter that the children, once friends, were not even allowed to serve Mass together. The incident has caused a great deal of harm to the home school community and to the parish. No doubt, the conflict has had a negative effect on the souls of those involved due to anger, pride and accusations of scandalous behavior.

The fact of the matter is that parents have the primary responsibility for educating their children. This really is the foundational philosophy of home schoolers. The Church gives parents wide discretion as to what is acceptable family entertainment. To force a shunning on those who differ on so minor a matter of taste fails to see the bigger picture and offends the unity of the Body of Christ.

Here are some suggestions for avoiding fracturing the cause of loyal and orthodox Catholics. First, good Catholics, liberal and conservative, should be up to date in theological discussions. They should know what is official Church teaching and what are matters for discussion and debate. Reading of The Documents of Vatican II, The General Instruction on the Liturgy, The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the encyclicals is vital before any of us attacks another’s orthodoxy. Second, in order to determine what is infallibly taught by the Church, what is a non–infallible teaching, what authority an encyclical has, and what may be legitimately discussed, persons should read the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Commentary on Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Moto Proprio, Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998). Third, regarding scriptural interpretation, the work of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the 1993 document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church will explain the Catholic position regarding modern biblical criticism. Fourth, we should carefully examine ourselves to see where our own fears, blindness and prejudices are coming from in our judgments of others. And finally, if we find ourselves unsure, always discuss our concerns with our pastor or a scholarly authority before we accuse others of not being loyal to Christ and his Church. To do this will avoid sinning against others through calumny and detraction, stop the spread of errors, limit scandal, serve the truth and strengthen the orthodox Catholic cause.

Reverend Michael P. Orsi, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, N.J., is the author of four books and many articles. He has served as Assistant Chancellor and Director of the Family Life Bureau. Fr. Orsi has a Ph.D. in education from the Fordham University. He is presently serving as Chaplain and Research Fellow in Law and Religion at Ave Maria School of Law, Ann Arbor, Mich. His last article in HPR appeared in May 2002.