This article was originally published on January 23, 1986, in The Wanderer. It is still very timely today and much more could be written on this subject at this time since the crisis in the Church is due in large measure to the bishops. In fact, the Third Secret of Fatima talks about the crisis of faith in the Church today. Father Alonso, the official Fatima archivist who had many times spoken to Sister Lucy tells us that the Third Secret refers to the guilt of the upper hierarchy for the state of Apostasy within the Church today.

One major safeguard against erring bishops that God has placed in the Church is the duty of informed Catholics to publicly criticize those bishops who by their words or actions endanger the faith. John Malloy explains some aspects of this duty of faithful Catholics below.

       Recently when I spoke to a friend of mine to get him to subscribe to a Catholic paper which I value highly, he told me that he could not give it his support because it engages in public criticism of bishops. Now while I recognize that many of the Catholic faithful believe that bishops should be immune from public criticism, I think this is a mistaken view, and I should like to state my reasons for holding that to be the case.

       Several factors must be taken into account when considering this issue. Ordinarily, public rebuke is not to be engaged in until private admonition has failed. But the experience of ever so many parents and orthodox Catholics shows that, where many bishops are concerned, private admonition has no effect whatever.

       In fact, it is difficult even to get to see a bishop when he knows that people are going to remonstrate with him concerning the way in which he is administering his episcopal office.

       Most bishops are mass-media conscious, and that means that they think in terms of avoiding adverse publicity; hence only abuses which get into the media have the note of reality for them.

       As a consequence, these bishops cannot be reached by private admonitions, but only by some adverse criticism in the newspapers or on television. As a general rule, without public criticism, most bishops are unreachable.

       The second question is whether, granting the fact that bishops will not respond to private admonition, it is permissible to rebuke them publicly or not. In other words, is the layman's only recourse to suffer in silence, and let widespread abuses against the teaching of the Catholic faith and morality go without any public notice being taken of it?

       Or does the pastoral responsibility attaching to the office of the bishop demand that others call his attention to his neglect of his crucial duties, when he ignores them or pretends that he has no such obligations?

       In the period prior to Vatican Council II, the attitude of the ordinary Catholic layperson in the United States was to assume that public criticism or rebuke of a bishop was never justified. But this was a period when bishops generally were staunch upholders of Catholic faith and morality, and were strongly committed to the defense of Papal authority.

       These facts naturally created a certain attitude towards bishops which arose out of the particular conditions of that era. The period since Vatican II, however, has seen such a radical change in the attitude of bishops towards the protection of Catholic doctrine and towards the administration of their dioceses that a reexamination of this previous assumption is now in order.

       Let us begin by seeing what St. Thomas Aquinas has to tell us on the matter of public rebuke of one's religious superiors. In the Summa Theologica, Question 33, Article 4, of the Second Part of Part II, St. Thomas has this heading: "Whether a Man Is Bound to Correct His Prelate?" His reply to that question runs as follows:

       "I answer that: A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment; but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction."

       St. Thomas reinforces this teaching by a statement from St. Augustine:

       "Augustine says in his Rule: 'Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in the greater danger'." To this Aquinas adds: "But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected."

       As to the manner of this correction, St. Thomas says:

       "Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do it in a becoming manner, not with imprudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect."

       Then, discussing the issue of St. Paul's reproof of St. Peter at Antioch, as mentioned in Paul's Letter to the Galatians 2:11, a rebuke that took place in public, St. Thomas states:

       "It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11: 'Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects'."

The greatest apostle, St. Paul, gave an example to all that the faith must be defended in public, even if it means rebuking bishops, even if necessary the Pope himself in public. (See Galatians, Chapter 2) Saint Peter gave an example to all superiors by accepting the correction humbly and returning to "walking the truth."

       In the quotation which St. Thomas gives from St. Augustine, the latter refers to the fact that a person in a higher position "is therefore in the greater danger." What that danger may consist of, and that it is not something at all remote, is shown in the following passage from the biography of St. Robert Bellarmine by Father James Brodrick. Brodrick first paraphrases what Bellarmine said to Pope Clement VIII, who had asked for his advice:

       "If the Pope took care to appoint the right kind of bishops, then he would be fulfilling his primary duty, but if he chose unfit candidates or if he neglected to keep them up to the mark, then God would demand at his hands the souls that might be lost through his carelessness."

       Brodrick then gives a direct quotation from St. Robert:

       "This consideration frightens me so much that there is no one in the world that I pity more than the Pope ....

       "What St. John Chrysostom wrote so feelingly about bishops, namely that only a few of them would be saved because of the extreme difficulty of giving a good account of the souls committed to their care, certainly applies much more to the occupants of St. Peter's throne" - from St. Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Scholar (The Newman Press, 1961), pp. 180-181. (emphasis added).

       We must recall that both St. John Chrysostom and St. Robert Bellarmine were in fact bishops. Yet how many bishops today really believe that this warning has any application to themselves?

       How many of them think that they will have to give an account before the Judgment Seat of God for the souls that may have been lost through their negligence, if not indeed through their outright disregard of Papal authority and teaching?

       Many bishops cannot face the reality of what they are responsible for, and hence are only too glad to have their subordinates conceal it from their sight, on the basis of an alleged respect due to the episcopal office.

       That kind of respect is not real reverence, but its opposite; it is a way of avoiding the hard facts of pastoral responsibility for people's being saved or damned through the way in which a bishop exercises, or fails to exercise, the duties of his office.

       Let us recall what Pope John Paul II said to the American Bishops on their ad limina visits in September 1983, and then ask ourselves how many bishops have paid any real attention to this pastoral charge when it came to the teaching and the practice in their own diocese. The Pope stated:

       "Hence the compassionate bishop proclaims the indissolubility of marriage ... The compassionate bishop will proclaim the incompatibility of premarital sex and homosexual activity with God's plan for human love; at the same time, with all his strength he will try to assist those who are faced with difficult moral choices.

       "With equal compassion he will proclaim the doctrine of Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio in its full beauty, not passing over in silence the unpopular truth that artificial birth control is against God's Law. He will speak out for the rights of the unborn ... no matter how current popular opinion views these issues."

       With so many bishops who disregard these solemn Papal admonitions, one wonders if they realize that their pastoral duties are concerned with immortal souls, destined either for a life of eternal happiness or eternal misery. Or do they believe that this life alone is all that really matters?

       Most of the above paragraphs were written some months before the recent announcement by the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in Washington of the disciplinary action taken by the Holy See against Archbishop Hunthausen for his misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. His errors covered a wide range of subjects — marriage, sterilization, homosexuality, and liturgical and sacramental matters.

       It seems that this action — however delayed it may have been in the light of the long record of the Archbishop's divergences from Catholic teaching — illustrates the key importance of the laity's providing public criticism of their bishops when, in the words of St. Thomas, the Catholic Faith is endangered.

       In the conditions which prevail in the Catholic Church today, this may well be the only means by which action can be gotten from higher authority to discipline an erring bishop.

       Archbishop Hunthausen is but one of a number of bishops in the United States who seem to believe that the Catholic Faith is a thing of wax in their hands, to be molded into whatever form suits their special preference — or, more likely, the preferences of their clerical and Religious subordinates or of the mass media whose plaudits they are so anxious to receive.

       Unless the laity become aware of their obligation to protect the Faith, and not allow error to go unchallenged, such bishops will go easily on their way, giving to the world a picture of Catholic teaching which completely distorts it.

       Consider these reasons why the action of the laity is so needed today:

       1) There are at least 170 dioceses in the United States, and over 300 bishops in active service, when one counts auxiliaries as well as ordinaries. This makes it a difficult, if not impossible task for an Apostolic Nuncio in Washington to know what is going on in the various dioceses, unless he is made aware of it by the laity, who are on the spot where the abuses are taking place.

       2) The diocesan press is published under the auspices of the local bishop; and it is a cardinal principle of bishops never to criticize in public another member of the hierarchy, regardless of how gravely he merits criticism. Diocesan papers are thus a controlled press, so far as making known the errors of other bishops are concerned.

       3) The secular media are somewhat more open to making criticisms of the bishops, but usually only when the bishops enter the area of public policy, not when they are dealing with matters of Catholic doctrine and morality, or Catholic discipline. In fact, in these latter cases the media with their bias toward liberalism, favor those bishops who undermine Catholic doctrine and authority and regard with disfavor those bishops who uphold them. So there is little likelihood of any bishop having to suffer criticism in the secular media (except through the forum of letters to the editor) for destroying Catholic doctrine in his diocese.

       4) In the United States, and probably in a number of other countries as well, the Catholic laity, or a certain part of it, has become well-informed as to the nature of the attacks being made upon Catholic doctrine, especially from theological Modernism, which St. Pius X called "the synthesis of all heresies." Such lay people are in many cases better informed than those liberal priests who are willing to accept Modernist ideas; for the latter are often poorly educated as to the actual teaching of Vatican Council II and have come to accept slogans about it rather than taking the time to read the documents themselves. Thus a certain part of the laity provides a fine intellectual resource for effective defense of the Faith in this time of crisis. They therefore have a grave obligation to use their abilities rather than letting them go to waste.

       5) One of the problems which faces lay men and women in fulfilling their new role is that the clergy, both bishops and priests, tend to think of themselves as the only ones who have a right to any authoritative views concerning Catholic teaching. Although this attitude is not often given open expression, it is implicit in the view held of the laity by the clergy that laypeople have no business meddling with matters of doctrine, except insofar as they receive these from the clergy. For the laity to hold definite views concerning what the Catholic Church teaches, even when these views are based on authoritative Church documents, savors to many clergy of the laity's being uppity and not knowing their proper place in the Church. Even good priests and bishops are apt to be infected with this virus, without being conscious of it. One can see how this attitude, which makes the clergy a kind of closed corporation, provides a wide open opportunity for heretical clergy to spread their poison among the Catholic people. And of course it means that, except for those priests who read The Wanderer or those who share similar views to such priests, the laity cannot expect much support or encouragement from the clergy in the task of defending the Catholic Faith against its enemies.

       There are undoubtedly other bishops in America who have sinned against Catholic teaching in the same manner as has Archbishop Hunthausen, and it is essential that they also should be persuaded to mend their ways. However thankless the task may be for the informed Catholic laypeople, and however much they may be looked down upon by higher authority as "mean-spirited" or referred to in other pejorative terms, this is a task which they must be prepared to carry out. It is part of what it means to be a faithful Catholic in the Church of today, existing in turmoil and crisis, largely brought on by the Church's own bishops and priests.

Return to
Table of Contents