The State of the Church
I have been rereading Father Joseph Girzone’s My Struggle With Faith, which was wrongly savaged in the April edition of the Catholic Insight.
At one point Girzone mentions that once he became aware of the Church Fathers, they became an important part of his life. Yet he claims that what he read from and about them was rewarding, but that it was also disturbing. The reason:
Bishops back then were real leaders, unafraid of controversy and highly intelligent defenders of the faith passed on to them from the apostles. They were men of passionate faith, willing to sacrifice themselves totally, even to death, if need be, to defend their faith. As I was learning more and more about Church life today, I did not see very many bishops of that caliber. I saw them more as pious men who were rewarded for their faithful service—company men, as they would be called in industry. It was difficult to respect them; they seemed to be more concerned about their political future than about the priests or people under their care.
It was rare to here a spiritually inspiring sermon or one of a theological nature, discussing dangerous moral or unchristian ideas circulating among the Christian community. Bishops might mention them superficially if there was a current public issue, but they did not provide people with solid or rational theological arguments explaining what should be a thinking Christian’s understanding of such issues. I will never forget the night after a particular bishop was made archbishop; the man was being interviewed on television and was asked about his attitude to abortion. His answer was ‘I am naturally against abortion because it is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.’ I cringed. What a sad reason for a religious leader to be for or against any issue…He could have at least said, ‘I am opposed to abortion because it is the destruction of a human life.’ That would have revealed a much stronger person who did his own thinking and could make a strong statement on a moral issue.
At the same time as the interview with the archbishop, there was an interview with the leading proponent of abortion in England. When asked if he believed the baby growing in its mother’s womb was a human being, he answered without hesitation, ‘You cannot deny that it is a human life; I admit that it is human. But….’ and the discussion continued from there. At least he did not just say, ‘I am in favor of abortion, because all my friends are in favor of abortion.’
Joseph Girzone, My Struggle With Faith (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2006), 105-107.
If people are concerned today about the state of the Church, they need not look to an increasingly empowered laity, nor is blame to be extended to politicians who scandalize their Church by particular positions they take. Rather, such concerned people should look no further than the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles. I suspect most concerned Catholics (and the irony here is that editorial board of the Catholic Insight are concerned Catholics as well) would agree with Girzone, that the caliber of Bishops is less than ideal. An exception is Archbishop Roussin of Vancouver, and his active opposition that was instrumental to Telus Mobility backpedalling in their plan to begin offering pornography sales through cell phones. Equally inspiring was his acknowledgment that he suffered from clinical depression. That showed courageous leadership as often the act of reigning over others is seen in terms of power, rather than as a humble call to serve others. Bishop Henry of Calgary is another, and can certainly not be accused of, to borrow a phrase from Girzone, being afraid of controversy. But these are exceptions to the sad general rule. We shouldn’t have to praise a Bishop for doing what he is supposed to do. Those who are mediocre should be the exception but right now they don’t seem to be. I am sure concerned Catholics in the archdiocese of Winnipeg cannot help but feel a little cynical about Archbishop Weisgerber’s reasons for refusing to allow James Loney to speak about peace at a recent Social Justice Conference. Could such concerned Catholics believe, for example, that the Archbishop’s actions were not related to the fact that he was at that moment in the process of being named the head of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops?
K.
Hi Kelly,
It seems to me that a generation gets the leadership it deserves. It is shocking and disappointing to read statistics which show that Catholics overall are themselves hardly distinguishable in their opinions on critical moral issues from the general population. Besides, the kind of daring you want from the Bishops comes at a price: being tough, overriding committees, dividing the dioces between those who support him and those who are against him, and risking schism. And dynamic leaders are less likely to be good pastors, good administrators or fiscally responsible.
My impression is that the Church is about as assertive as it can be. It is already persecuted by the press. There is very little understanding for the moral positions that it takes, and it hasn’t backed down—on the contrary. It is unrealistic to think that a more assertive public stance would be very effective. The cultural forces driving the decadent spirit of our age are ascendant and very powerful, and if the Church were to take a militant stand, if the bishops launched a high-profile crusade, many Catholics might begin to ask themselves if they were really Catholic after all.
To say that abortion is forbidden because the Church forbids it is not comparable to saying that it is forbidden because my friends forbid it. Rather, it is like saying, it is forbidden because Christ—because G-d–forbids it—and that is the right reason and ultimately the deepest reason for forbidding it. How many people in the modern world could really take seriously the idea that killing an embryo the size of dime is murder? But if G-d forbids it, that’s a reason to give it some thought. Modern man’s ethical sensitivity is superficial and perverse, but he, too, yearns to rest in G-d, and cannot but envy the faith of the Catholic who believes in his Church.
All virtues are accompanied by their corresponding vices, and the vice that accompanies the kind of leadership you are advocating is intolerance. And that’s a vice for which modern society has no tolerance. It would portray the Church as a hate institution and perhaps even move to restrict it by law. Such is the madness of our time.
Besides, the Church is aware of her past sins, and is determined not to repeat them. Such is the way of the penitent, that he is likely to demonstrate excessive caution in approaching issues that once caused him to sin. The animus for a long-practiced sin is strong and enduring, so there’s no other way.
Richard
Comment by Richard — November 17, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Hi Kelly, I think Father Gizone is having trouble, like many of us faithful Catholic Christians, with the liberalism and secularism that crept into the church with Vatican 2. Not that it was ever intended, but many people there were running on their own agendas to change the church from something made by the Lord, into something man-made; with the confusion they brought into the lives of the faithful, in some places of this world, it can certainly seem as if they have succeeded. Faithful Catholics have the duty not to be confused. And to stand against what these people promote: the confusion on homosexuality, the confusion on sexual sin, the confusion on abortion, the confusion on euthanasia, the ordination of women, the promotion of goddess worship, rebellion, dissent, anger and hatred. We can get back to what is right and true, with more Bible-based study, and bishops who stand firmly for the Lord, like Fred Henry and Bishop Bruskewitz and all the others….. Kate
Comment by Kate — November 20, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Hi Kelly. I disagree with you profoundly, as you know already.
Fred Henry has written, “since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.”
The issue he is speaking about here is homosexuality, but he includes a list of unrelated sexual sins as rhetorical cover.
I am not with Fred Henry. I am with the gays and with Desmond Tutu: “If God as they say is homophobic I wouldn’t worship that God.”
The vast majority of gay people are “humble and insignficant”, so this issue is ultimately the same as the next issue in your blog.
Clayton
Comment by Clayton — November 22, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Clayton,
1. You Wrote: I am not with Fred Henry. I am with the gays and with Desmond Tutu: “If God as they say is homophobic I wouldn’t worship that God.”
Richard: That puts it just right. The homosexual culture cares for nothing—not even for G-d–more than sex-my-way, and if it has always been regarded as deviant and sinful within Judeo-Christian tradition, well then it’s homophobic–toss it away! There are higher things in life, and traditions that teach them, and not one of them sees it your way.
Richard
Comment by Richard — November 23, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Clayton, be careful!!!!! We are judged on every word we speak and on what we stand for and believe. What a thing to say, “If God is homophobic, I wouldn’t worship that God…” Who would you worship then? Gods word is clear on what He thinks of homosexuality. His word leaves little doubt. So you must make a choice. To follow God, or to follow WHAT? Your eternal salvation settles on that.
Comment by Kate — November 23, 2007 @ 7:52 am
Hi Richard,
You wrote, “The homosexual culture cares for nothing—not even for G-d–more than sex-my-way.”
This is not a true statement. Gay culture is nothing other than culture. It is full of tensions, various views, and differing values. Yes, the dominant values in gay culture are faulty but, again, that doesn’t distinguish it from culture as a whole.
I do agree with you up to a point but no further. There is such a thing as sexual sin. God prefers monogamy, fidelity, love, and marriage to self-indulgence in sexual relationships. Where we disagree is that I am certain that monogamy, fidelity, love, and marriage are perfectly compatible with same-sex relationships. My own life is an example of this.
You also wrote, “There are higher things in life, and traditions that teach them, and not one of them sees it your way.”
What these higher things are and what traditions can be said to teach them is clearly a matter of opinion, otherwise you would not be able to say, “not one of them sees it your way.” You are certainly being very selective when you make that statement.
Clayton
Comment by Clayton — November 26, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Hi Kate,
I also believe that we are judged by every action, including what we stand for and what we believe. God knows that my beliefs are sincere and tested, I suspect, by a whole lot more experience, thought, struggle, and prayer than most people’s. If I am wrong, I hope and trust that a good God will forgive me.
But your question boils down to, “What if God isn’t good?” If God isn’t good, then there is no eternal salvation except possibly at the whim of an omnipotent tyrant. If I have any choice in the matter, I choose not to worship Satan.
Clayton
Comment by Clayton — November 26, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Hi Clayton, at the risk of repeating myself, let me just be brief. You do have a choice. Read Gods Word and see what he says about homosexuality, and then be honest with yourself. The decision you make WILL affect your eternal salvation… Kate
Comment by Kate — November 26, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
This conversation has gone in two different directions. The first has to do directly with Girzone’s indictment of the Church hierarchy, while the second goes more specifically into the issue of homosexuality. I am not so interested in the second conversation at present, but perhaps tomorrow or the day after, I can address some of the comments there and perhaps we can bring that off-shoot back around by discussing an appropriate response to the issue.
I disagree with Richard who believes that the generation simply gets the leadership it deserves. He looks at a weak laity, and sees the hierarchy as doing about as much as they can in light of this. I would suggest instead that a hierarchy that passionately defended the things they believed to be true, and empowered the laity with effective teaching, would find their laity transformed.
Richard, you further suggest that saying that abortion is forbidden is unlike saying it is forbidden because my friends forbid it. You miss the point. Girzone’s point is that there’s tons of people listening to that question, and waiting for the Bishop’s answer, and then all they here is ‘the Church forbids it.’ That is not a defence of an argument. That is an appeal to an authority, and for the great many who do not consider that authority binding, the Bishop lost a real opportunity to say why the Church is against abortion. And I disagree, I think the argument against abortion by citing the life that exists in the womb is a powerful argument, and one that does not directly touch on religion.
As far as the vices that you believe would accompany the type of leadership that you believe I am advocating, let me just say that I don’t want to see a more intolerant Church. But I do want to see one that defends the positions it takes in an intelligent and passionate matter, and in doing so, reconvert the laity to their cause. You cite details about the quality of the laity’s faith, and often we hear statistics about how many Catholics believe this or that. The problem is not the laity. The problem is with those entrusted to educate and empower the laity.
You talk about the madness of our time. I daresay it was, at least on the surface, probably much worse during the early days of the Church, and yet it was those Bishops, the ones that were willing to give their life for their faith, that Girzone seems to admire. We have a great many today, who thought not threatened with their lives, are just worried about being portrayed uncharitably in the media.
Regarding the second comment, I don’t think Girzone’s views should be interpreted along the liberal/conservative line. After all Jesus did not create the Church intending that it would be a conservative entity in the world. The Church has always transcended those kind of labels. Because of the large prominence placed on Tradition, the Church will always be in some sense conservative, but as far taking the truths of Tradition and constantly finding new ways to relate such truths, the Church must be in some sense liberal, not relying on methods that worked in the past, but constantly engaging in creatively determining on how best to relate timeless truths to new generations.
K.
Comment by K. — December 1, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
he sounds like he has evaluated the situation acturately although i would like to read the book before i make that statement. I am glad i am in the presence of a bishop who is similar to the bishops of old.
Comment by Sean — December 8, 2007 @ 5:05 pm