The Danger Of Criticizing Priests And Bishops

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote][url="http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/morrow.htm"]From Homiletic & Pastoral Review[/url]
In the thirteenth century many priests were involved in seeking wealth and having a pleasant life. They hardly preached at all, virtually never studied, and paid for important positions so that they could get even more money. A number of priests openly lived with women, causing great scandal. Some of the bishops lived in unbelievable wealth, and would sell Church positions to keep their rich life style. Many of the people were just as bad as their leaders.

As a result, many so-called prophets had appeared, some good, some not-so-good, who promised terrible punishments if people did not reform. Peter Waldo was one of the reformers who had a great beginning. He gave up his riches to live in poverty and spread the faith. He had many followers who also lived as poor men, and did penance. However, when they began to preach without permission against the lazy and sinful priests, the Archbishop of Lyons, France, excommunicated them.

The group, called the Waldensians, took their case to the pope, and he encouraged them. He praised Peter for living in poverty and gave him and his followers permission to urge the people to live moral and holy lives wherever the bishops allowed them to do so. But since they had not studied theology they were not permitted to explain the Bible or to instruct people in the faith. Unfortunately, they began to do both.

In time they got into all sorts of errors, such as placing their interpretation of the Bible over the authority of the pope, denying both purgatory, and veneration of the saints. They also refused to go to confession to immoral priests, preferring to confess to good people who were not priests. As a result, the Waldensians were excommunicated by the pope in 1184.

...

Despite their sincerity, and their living radical Gospel poverty, they all fell astray. They lost the faith. But, their contemporary, Francis of Assisi did not. Why not? Because he never went anywhere to preach the Gospel without permission of the priests. Furthermore, he would never criticize the priests and bishops—even the most lazy and immoral ones—nor would he allow his friars to do so. (As a result, the Franciscans were always welcome just about everywhere they went.)

...

The Franciscan Order revolutionized the faith in Europe during the 19 years from Francis’s conversion at age 25 to his death. There were thousands of Franciscans by the time he died, spreading the true faith, not by pointing out the sins of the priests and bishops (of which there were certainly many), but by living the gospel so simply and so joyfully that people found it irresistible.

Today there are many priests and even bishops who seem to invite criticism by what they say and do, but most are far less culpable than the priests and bishops of St. Francis’ time. The recent scandals in the U.S. priesthood are much uglier but they have been dealt with far more strongly than those lesser but more widespread faults of the thirteenth century.[/quote]
he goes on to add the problems that can come from taking criticism too far:
-rejecting doctrines
-liturgical tampering
-losing joy

and adds:
[quote]As I mentioned earlier, it is not wrong to acknowledge the errors of priests or bishops, or gently point them out. But, when it becomes a zealous sport to pontificate about such errors, and to verbally attack these clerics personally, it goes too far.[/quote]
comments?

[CatherineM]

If I ever had a problem with a priest, I would take it up privately with the bishop. I can't imagine doing it publicly. I come from a military family, and I guess I was indoctrinated in going through the chain of command.

If the bishop doesn't do anything about the issue, then I would probably drop it, and try to understand that there might be deeper issues involved that I'm not aware of, and may be none of my business.

I've only felt the need to go to the Archbishop once, and that wasn't for anything a priest had done, but because of a series of articles that appeared in the Western Catholic Reporter where a woman was doing a Lenten series about her personal battle with depression, and when she started talking about how everyone should go off their psych meds and rely on prayer alone, I freaked. I sent him a letter that if anyone read that, went off their meds, and hurt themselves or anyone else, that the diocese could be held liable. Plus, since I had now informed him of the issue, if he didn't take action, he could be held personally and severably liable as well.

Because of publication lag time, the next issue had a disclaimer that people shouldn't go off their meds, and the series was completely pulled the issue after that. I didn't actually threaten to sue him, per se, but I sure kept a low profile around him for a while after that. I had already been ducking him because he wanted me to take the Social Justice position at the Archdiocese, and I didn't want him to twist my arm into taking it. Funny, after threatening him with potential law suits, he stopped trying to hire me.

[aalpha1989]

I disagree with the conclusions drawn by the author. The Waldenesians (or however you spell it) did not go astray because they condemned priests (although there was probably a better way to reform)... they went astray because they had not been trained in theology and because they rejected teachings of the Mother Church. They confessed to lay people. They just didn't have the theological background required to teach and whatever else they did. They should have listened to the pope.

Also, the Franciscans' success is not due necessarily to the fact that they requested priests' permission before they preached. Their success is due to their fidelity to the Church and to Christ.

Basically the author needs to seperate fidelity to individual priests and fidelity to the Church. Priests are our fathers and should be respected, but they are not all popes. They speak for the Church, but sometimes they abuse their office.

I'm not sure whether public condemnation of a priest is always bad. We should give them the benefit of the doubt, but we don't accept bad things just because they are priests. We don't let them lead people astray just because we respect their office. Quite frankly, peoples' souls are more important than the office held by a single priest (when that office is abused).

Edited July 22, 2008 by aalpha1989

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
aalpha, did you read the whole article, not just what i posted?

[Apotheoun]

It is important to remember that the vast majority of the founders of heretical movements have been bishops and priests (Nestorius, Arius, Pelagius, Eutyches, Apollinarius, Pyrrhus, et al.), and not members of the lay faithful, who as humble Christians legitimately criticized their misguided hierarchs.

Personally, I believe that a “new springtime” in the Church will be brought about by people who resemble St. Athanasios the Great instead of St. Francis of Assisi. Now that is just my opinion of course, but my opinion has just as much validity as the opinion stated by the author of the article, who presents a rather myopic vision of the Church's spiritual, liturgical, and theological tradition.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Apotheoun

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1605517' date='Jul 22 2008, 08:02 PM']+J.M.J.+
aalpha, did you read the whole article, not just what i posted? [/quote]

nope, just the part you quoted... i'll look at it.

[CatholicCid]

I think "taking criticisms too far" sums it up. It's one thing to charitably correct and point out error. However, if one takes it too far, they may not see a need to listen to the Priest at all... And if not that Priest, why listen to that Bishop, and if not that Bishop, why listen to the Church at all. I would think that with most heresies, it starts with disobedience.

[aalpha1989]

I know I've read this before... maybe I stumbled across it or something...

He says one should not "dwell on the negatives", and I suppose he is right for the most part, but someone has to think about them. Someone needs to act on them.

I guess my problem is this. He says that the faults of the clergy should be acknowledged by the people, but this should be done quietly and the fault should be understated. I do understand that we should respect those who have given their lives to Christ, but what if one was living in a diocese in which the bishop was openly for women's ordination, never discussed life issues (indeed, welcomed pro-choice "Catholic" politicians to speak at diocesan events), and let the parishes do essentially whatever they wanted in regards to the liturgy. The author (a priest... God bless him ) says that letters should be written. He cites a few saints whose letters influenced their bishops a great deal. In a diocese such as the one I have suggested above (they are, as far as I know, few and far between, but do exist), shoudl one not speak about the injustice? I think remaining silent or understating the faults would be wrong. One should speak charitably, of course, but one must speak.

Would it be better, then, to voice one's support [b]for [/b]the Church's positions as opposed to expressing that you are [b]against [/b]the bishop's stances? I guess that makes sense... maybe I addressed my own concerns.

Edited July 23, 2008 by aalpha1989

[Madame Vengier]

I'm all for criticizing them. And since I said that it might sound surprising when I say I have the uptmost and profound respect for the dignity of the priesthood. I believe--as a mystic once wrote--that even a priest's guardian angel enters a room behind the priest, so great is Heaven's respect for the Priesthood. But I do not think they are above criticism--and that goes for Bishops as well. Our Church has suffered greatly because of the actions and words of some priests and Bishops, and no one criticized them except to occasionally whisper about them in private. So they have gotten away with it, over and over and over. These actions range from child molestations to bad theology to outright dissent from Mother Church. Without a word from anyone. Because we "aren't supposed to do that". Please. I don't care what anyone says. They have a great responsibility and this responsibility didn't just haphazardly land in their laps. They CHOSE it. So they should be held accountable to it.

[quote]Personally, I believe that a “new springtime” in the Church will be brought about by people who resemble St. Athanasios the Great instead of St. Francis of Assisi[/quote]

I couldn't agree more.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
mme, did you even read the article? he says specifically that we should be careful of carrying our criticisms too far, which i agree with the conclusions that CatholicCid came up with:
[quote]I think "taking criticisms too far" sums it up. It's one thing to charitably correct and point out error. However, if one takes it too far, they may not see a need to listen to the Priest at all... And if not that Priest, why listen to that Bishop, and if not that Bishop, why listen to the Church at all. I would think that with most heresies, it starts with disobedience.[/quote]

and i totally agree with aalpha too
[quote]I think remaining silent or understating the faults would be wrong. One should speak charitably, of course, but one must speak.

Would it be better, then, to voice one's support for the Church's positions as opposed to expressing that you are against the bishop's stances? I guess that makes sense... maybe I addressed my own concerns.[/quote]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1605579' date='Jul 22 2008, 07:58 PM']So they should be held accountable to it.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
and i do believe they will be held accountable, at the very least by the Church, and of course, by the Ultimate Judge, God.

[Apotheoun]

St. Maximos the Confessor was a layman and he criticized many hierarchs (e.g., Patriarch Pyrrhus), and he was vindicated in his actions after his death by the sixth ecumenical council.

Apathy in the face of theological error often leads to heresy.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Apotheoun

[thessalonian]

There are certainly times when those above us should be rebuked. Rarely in public. If we become too lax about the authority they have over us we do run the risk of heading down the path of our own understanding which prov 3:5 says not to trust. Jer 3:15 says "I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will give you knowledge and understanding". The magesterium of the Church needs to be honored and revered because they are given to us by God to guide us in truth.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1605704' date='Jul 22 2008, 11:12 PM']+J.M.J.+
mme, did you even read the article? [/quote]


Of course I read it. And the end of the post it says "comments?" and I gave my comments. How did that warrant asking me if "you even read the article"?

[Deb]

We should all be defenders of our faith. If we see a priest who is teaching in direct opposition to the doctrines of our faith, we should discuss it with him and if needed, with the Bishop. We have the right as Catholics to take the issue as far as Rome if we have to. We do not however need to do it in a public forum or in any way that would bring scandal upon the Church. We have enough enemies who pick up and run with anything they can in their attempts to destroy the Church.
Satan thrives on creating disunity and nothing makes him happier than to use one of Christ's own to bring that about and that includes priests as well as us.
Please remember that Christ works even through priests who are tepid or off center. The Holy Spirit has been protecting the Church since its inception and I have complete faith that will continue.