SPEAK UP! AND PERISH!

In my last blog post, I tried to make the point that as Catholics we accept the voice of the Pope on the narrow range of basic matters of faith and morals, but feel free to comment, or even to disagree, on his selected priorities and on polices and practices that he has established on his own human terms. At issue was his canceling of the excommunication of four schismatic bishops, who had rejected the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II, with one of them espousing anti-Semitic views. I was unhappy that Benedict XVI had received back the four dissidents without their rejecting anti-Semitism and and agreeing to accept the documents of Vatican II. The response to my blog was, for the most part, favorable. A few respondents, however, were dismayed at my criticism of Benedict. After all, he is now our Pope! We must go along with the current pope in all matters!

Is that really true? In that blog, I pointed out that John XXIII had assembled bishops from around the world in Vatican Council II, which, in its document "Nostra Aetate", was a landmark in forging congenial relations with the Jewish community. John had endeared himself personally to the Jews by many of his actions. He had greeted a Jewish group, saying, "I am Joseph, your brother." As a papal nuncio prior to becoming pope, he had authorized the issuing of Catholic baptismal certificates to help Jews escape the Nazi death traps.


John Paul II had established good relations with the Jewish community from his days in Poland and on through his papacy. Among other things, he had established diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Israel; had visited Israel and prayed at the Western Wall. He was not the collegially minded John XXIII, but was noted for dominating the many Synods of Bishops, to the diminution of the influence of the gathered bishops. He has also been perceived as unhappy with some of the Vatican II reforms. He has, to some degree, diminished the role of the laity in the liturgy. He has weakened the collegial influence of the national conferences of bishops, requiring unanimous consent by the bishops to its policy conclusions. Without unanimity, the matter goes to him!


My blog post pointed out the different policy position of these three popes on relations with the Jews and on their different attitudes toward collegial policy-making. I suggested that the faithful were quite free to choose which of the popes they preferred in light of their relationship towards the Jewish community and on their attitude towards the reforms of Vatican II, especially regarding collegiality.


Yesterday in his N Y Times column, Peter Steinfels, took my thought a big step forward. He reported the anger of much of the Jewish world at Benedict's recent reception of four dissident bishops, one of whom has public espoused anti-Semitic views. He reported the concern of many of the faithful that the four dissidents, each of whom had separated from the Church by rejecting Vatican II, had been un-excommunicated without making any change in their dissenting views. Steinfels suggests that this dissident, ultra-conservative group has received a welcome that has not been and will not be extended to the non-schismatic faithful, who espouse liberation theology or the ordination of women. The columnist goes on to say that "the further problem, for the Catholics, no less than for the Jews, is puzzlement about the pope and his leadership".

Steinfels goes further. He wonders why not one of our 433 bishops have voiced some misgivings about Benedict's action. Bishop Wilton Gregory, a USCCB official, has merely said that Catholics were "embarrassed" by this episode. But Steinfels continues, "No bishop, it appears has added a public word of doubt about the wisdom of Pope Benedict's action or wondered out loud how it came about".

Sic dixit Steinfels! He gives facts and his opinion. But the larger question lies ahead:"Why?" Is a bishop like a corporate officer or a branch manager, who can say nothing critical about the boss? Where is the much touted, but ignored, collegiality? We know that bishops are regularly promoted to bigger dioceses and power positions, if - an important "if" - the boss likes them. Crude? Yes. But that's the answer to why bishops don't speak up. It's in the structure and in the atmosphere. What to do about it? Comments welcome!