A Marketplace of Ideas
It was a silent retreat – in fact, beautiful overall – complete with the celebration of sacraments, guided readings, some audio tapes and a series of talks by the retreat master. My issues had to do with some of the points made by the retreat master, Father X, in his presentations.
The problem I have in such situations is trying to find the right tone in which to register disagreement. Father X did not strike me as a bad or malicious man. He seemed like a good, gentle person, working, as he told us, primarily with the local Hispanic community, and much of the time in Spanish. There was no need to sick a pit bull on him. I much prefer a civil tone, anyway (as unfortunately necessary as our public pit bulls are). The important thing is to say something. It’s a marketplace of ideas out there, and the bad ones seem to get all the advertising. Especially now, in the midst of the current crisis, I think we in the Catholic Exchange community have a real responsibility to speak up when we can in defense of orthodoxy.
Like you, unfortunately, I’m not a Chesterton, and there wasn’t a whole lot of time to make my case (although there was, mercifully, a Catechism in the library). So, sure, if I could travel back in time and write my letter to Father X over again, changing some things, I would. I just felt it important to include the letter along with the comment sheets collected at the end of the retreat. Ripeness is all.
Forgive My Boldness
What follows – in the spirit of “We’ve all got to do our part” – is the text of the letter as submitted:
Dear Father X,
Thank you for your sincerity and for an inspiring and thought-provoking weekend. I feel that my spiritual batteries have been recharged, which I appreciate, and for which I am grateful to you and to the rest of the excellent staff. Bravo!
I must admit I was somewhat troubled by the beginning of your chapel talk at 11:15 on Saturday. The current scandals in parts of the Church are difficult to speak about, and I appreciate that your thoughts on the matter are not yet settled. Nor are my own. I do, however, see the problem as a problem of individuals and not as a problem inherent in the structure of Church authority itself.
Your remarks struck me as critical of the nature of this authority, which you at least appeared to me to criticize as “top-down,” “hierarchical” and “patriarchal.” Indeed, it is all three, and has been from the very beginning. Given time constraints on you, permit me to let the revised Catechism of the Catholic Church speak for itself (and for me) – the quotes reproduced here simply to save your good self the trouble of hunting down cites:
“The task of giving an authentic interpretation to the Word of God … has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” (Para. 85) …
““Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.”” (Para. 862) …
“When Christ instituted the Twelve, 'he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter. … Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.'” (Para. 880) …
“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (Para. 882) … “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”” (Para. 883)
Thus, the structure of Church authority is “top-down,” “hierarchical” and “patriarchal” by divine institution. However, the Catechism also states that the “presence of Christ in the minister [e.g., bishop, priest] is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin.” (Para. 1550) This important (and, I think, obvious) point is made abundantly evident in the context of the current environment, and it suggests as a possible approach that individual cases of culpability, by act or omission, and regardless of level (e.g., cardinal or parish priest), should be addressed individually. To take a “systemic” approach, calling into question the nature and structure of Church authority itself, risks what would be the tragic result of undermining that authority – and especially in an era, and in a cultural environment, in which we need it most.
Pax Christi, and forgive my boldness, please.
Un abrazo,
John B. Allen
Both Human and Divine
P.S. I’m afraid I also feel constrained to register my disagreement with your interpretation of Gethsemane. To deny Jesus’s foreknowledge, it seems to me (or to question it, more fairly), is to question the divinity of the “pre-resurrection” Jesus, it seems. I realize that it does, on the other hand, bolster his humanity – but, of course, Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.
Moreover, the Gospels all recount Jesus’s statement about the destruction of the temple. John 2:19 states, “Jesus answered and said to them, 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.'” Two verses later, John clarifies that “he was speaking about the temple of his body” (John 2:21). It is for this reason that John, who had arrived at the tomb first (but let Peter enter first – in a nod to his hierarchical primacy, I would submit!), “saw and believed” when he entered the tomb (John 20:8). That is, Jesus – being fully divine as well as fully human – had already stated what was to happen regarding his death and resurrection.
Happy Easter!
Otro abrazo, esta vez más fuerte,
John
(Editor's Note: I asked JA if the priest ever responded and here was his reply: “No, and despite my having given him my coordinates. I really think the fringe crowd — and I'm not so sure Fr. X is even in it — responds to orthodoxy in much the same way we would respond to a flat-earther (sort of eyes raised, head-shaking bemusement). Which is all the more strange given that resurrection from the dead (!) — which is about the barest minimum you would have to accept if you want to call yourself a Catholic priest — is probably in itself the greatest of the 'logical' risks of the religion. It just seems incongruous for someone to say, 'O.K., resurrection from the dead I can accept, but foreknowledge of it? That's just impossible! Multiplication of loaves and fishes? Impossible!' It's not being able to make up one's mind as between seeing through the eyes of faith and the eyes of logic. Atheists are at least more coherent.”
© Copyright 2002 Catholic Exchange
John Allen is an attorney in Stamford, CT. His brother Tom is editor-in-chief of Catholic Exchange. You can email John at [email protected].
