Who Gets to Say? – The Catholic Thing

I read recently that Cardinal Reinhard Marx says he will allow the blessing of same-sex unions, contrary to Vatican directives. Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, says he intends to ordain new bishops without a papal mandate.  And Luxembourg’s Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich says women’s ordination is essential to the Church’s future; “I cannot imagine in the long run how a Church can survive, if half of the people of God suffers because they have no access to ordained ministry,”

Well, as a married layman who has “no access to ordained ministry,” I can imagine it. I’ve always thought the priesthood is a special calling to service, not a position of special prestige to which people deserve to be given “access.” But Cardinal Hollerich seems to have a different point of view – perhaps because he is feted as a Cardinal.

Cardinal Hollerich’s statement isn’t really news, though. The late Cardinal Pell warned shortly before his death in an article in The Spectator that Hollerich had “publicly rejected the basic teachings of the Church on sexuality, abortion, contraception, the ordination of women to the priesthood and homosexual activity, as well as polygamy, divorce, and remarriage.” So, women’s ordination isn’t the only thing the Cardinal thinks the Church can’t do without.

I am convinced that the Church can do without those things – quite well, in fact – as do most of the people I know. Cardinal Hollerich may know people with a different view, but there’s an old saying that when a man becomes a bishop, he never pays for dinner again, and he never hears the truth again. People tell him what they think he wants to hear. People don’t do that with me.

And yet, the people I talk to don’t seem to count in quite the same way as Hollerich or the “experts” on Synodal Group 9 that announced recently that the Church has been totally wrong on sexual matters. I interact with young people every day, and from that perspective, I would have told them that the Church’s teaching is a Godsend – much wiser than anything else on offer today. But that view doesn’t seem to count as much, or at all.

Which makes me wonder how you get to be a person like Fr. James Martin, S. J., who flies to Rome to consult with the pope and gets quoted as an authority regularly. 

I suppose one reason that Fr. Martin and others like him have the “access” they enjoy is because he is a cleric, and I’m not. But isn’t that clericalism? I thought clericalism was a bad thing, something the Church needs to put an end to. Lots of clerics say this. Some of them blame the entire pedophile scandal on clericalism, not, as one might have thought, on the lax standards regarding sex among some homosexually-oriented clergy. 

So if clericalism needs to be resisted, why is it especially relevant what Jean-Claude Hollerich thinks about women’s ordination, homosexual activity, or divorce and remarriage? The answer, one must assume, is that he is a Cardinal.  Fair enough. But Cardinals don’t have the authority to dictate doctrine. They are men under authority themselves. And if they don’t respect the authority they are under, why should anyone respect theirs?  

My students come to the Catholic university where I teach not because they want to listen to me. They come because they want to learn what the Church teaches. The only “authority” I have is the authority derived from Church teaching. The class isn’t “Randall Smith Theology.”  Who would take it? The class is Catholic theology. 

So, when a bishop or Cardinal proclaims something that is contrary to the authority of the Church, it is like he is sawing off the branch he is sitting on.  The only reason anyone would listen to a bishop or Cardinal is because that person accepts the authority of his ecclesiastical office based on Scripture, tradition, and magisterium.  Otherwise, a Cardinal is just a bizarre old guy in a funny red cap.

I know that people on one side or another will say that their guy is “doing what’s best for the Church,” while the guys on the other side are heretics leading people astray.  I have no doubt the SSPX people are horrified by Cardinals Marx and Hollerich and are convinced that they absolutely must ordain new bishops, just as Marx and Hollerich are likely dismayed by the SSPX and convinced the Church absolutely must bless homosexual unions and ordain women.  

The odd thing about all these men is their presumption that what they think should govern the whole Church. I don’t assume that what I think should govern everything even in my own house. What delusion of grandeur gets into a man’s head that he thinks, “The Church, c’est moi. I may cause a schism, but it will be better for everyone.”

Really? When has schism ever made things “better”?  And when has schism ever stopped at just one?  Dispense with the authority of the Church, and what prevents further divisions?  Just ask the Protestants. Think leading people into schism is good for the salvation of their souls? Would setting a church on fire be good for the building? 

Some will say: “It’s not heresy; it’s schism.” But schism is heresy.  The term “heresy” comes from a Greek root (haiereo) meaning “to choose.”  When a group decides they can choose one set of doctrines or Church councils they want to obey and which they don’t, that’s heretical.  Such people have simply made themselves another group of Protestants.

Some of my best friends are Protestants.  One thing I like about my Protestant friends is that they don’t pretend that they’re Catholic. So, if certain people want to separate themselves from the Catholic Church, fine.  It’s been done before. It’s sad, but the Church always survives. But you can’t keep church buildings built by and for Catholics. If you make your own church, build your own buildings. 

You can come back for coffee.