From the beginning of this mess, the fault lines have puzzled and frustrated observers.
For years, the press, as well as a good number of Catholics themselves, have seen disagreements within the Church in terms of “orthodox/progressive” or “conservative/liberal.” And don’t write me critiquing the terminology, hollering that I should just come out and call the “progressives” heretics or heterodox. I’m not committing, I’m just reporting.
We’ve seen it with every papal visit, every story about a bishop’s conference, every conflict about a Catholic university.
But then in late January, it all started to fall apart.
This is because the first major player in this story was Cardinal Law, the anti-Bernardin, upholder of orthodoxy (we thought), oppressor of nuns wearing stoles at baptism, now seemed to be way too sympathetic to priests whose views on sexual morality didn’t match his (we thought).
Now, the fact that Law seemed to be guilty of over-protection of his clerical charges didn’t surprise observers comfortable in The Paradigm, but something else did: the fact that the primary voices raging against the sins of Law were not from Call to Action. They were William Donohue of the Catholic League. Rod Dreher of the National Review. And over time, voices which perhaps did not rage, but indeed suggested politely that Cardinal Law might do the church much good if he stepped down were not the progressives. It was Buckley, Bennett, Noonan and so on.
What to make of this? How does this fit into the paradigm?
It obviously doesn’t. We’ve seen the vastness of this problem, and we’ve seen that “orthodoxy” or “progressivism” have little to do with it. As I’ve said before, what lay Catholics are seeing, for the very first time, spread out for them in the papers, with hard facts that are hard to deny, is that with much of the clergy, the needs of the brotherhood trump ideology and theology. Every time.
And so you have the rage. We’re told to focus on Christ. To put the gospel above the call of the world and the flesh. What’s the use of even trying if our leaders obviously aren’t?
I have thought long and hard about Andrew Sullivan’s contention that the rage is somehow related to the Catholic laity’s dislike of traditional moral precepts, but it simply doesn’t make any sense, not any way you look at it. Even as a side issue, it doesn’t compute, especially since the most vociferous public ragers seem to be Catholics who take Catholic moral teaching seriously and try to live it.
A side note: I have been fascinated, by contrast, with the relative reticence of the usual Catholic progressive voices on this issue. Call to Action has come out against zero tolerance. The pages of America and Commonweal should be tinted yellow, they’re so full of caution. It’s been especially noticeable as the scandal has spread beyond child sexual predators, has bishops have been revealed to be paying off ex-lovers and being fascinated with male triathletes. You’d think that when the sins of the hierarchy are being revealed, the progressives would be at the forefront, protesting, putting ads in the New York Times and planning out their next banner.
I think I have an answer. They know. They know that this cycle of revelations is nowhere near over, and as the child abuse issues fade, the press, motivated by nothing but a desire to keep a fruitful story going, will start poking around for more clerical sins. What Bishop Lynch is up to down in St. Pete with his triathletes and his boat has nothing directly to do with child sexual abuse, but you can be sure if this interest in the sex lives of clerics and Bishops Who Protect Them hadn’t been in the papers every day since January, the reporters at the St. Pete Times and the Tampa Tribune (especially – they are too often the LA Times of that area, too worried about their sources drying up if bad stuff is reported) wouldn’t have been inquiring about Lynch and his friends.
So yes, the progressives know. They know what bishops and prominent clerics, especially those on “their side” have dark pasts and …uh…interesting present lives. They are deathly worried that in this tornado that’s a brewing, that’s enveloping any story that has the terms “priest” and “sex” on the same page, many, many of their heroes will be taken down. It’s already started to happen, and they’re already whining, “witch hunt.”
(It’s worth noting what a reader pointed out to me. The term “witch hunt” is entirely inappropriate in this context. There were, indeed, no witches. There are, indeed, bishops and clerics who are exploiting their positions, living lies, and making the rest of us pay for it.)
So in the end, there are a number of reasons Catholics are angry – as varied as the types of Catholics that exist and sit in the pews. Some are angry because they see this as a slap in the face: we’re trying to live serious, committed Catholic lives here. We’re raising our kids, giving of our time and resources to good causes, trying to live out our lay apostolate in the world, and doing it all as we struggle with finances and the more negative temptations American life has to offer. And there you are, bishop, in your big house, with your secretaries and servants, writing letters about the importance of following Christ, making us feel vaguely guilty that maybe we’re not doing all we could, and you’re using our good will to hide the sins of your priests and our money to pay settlements.
And yes, some are angry because they see it as one part of the piece of the post-Vatican II decline of the church. And others are angry because they think the whole thing would be fixed if women were ordained.
But mostly, people are angry and shocked because no matter what the particular issue: protection of a pedophile, pay-offs to an ex-lover, belligerence towards victims in legal proceedings, secrecy, misuse of diocesan funds…whatever the specifics, the general issue is the same: You call us to follow Christ and put Him first. You’re not. You’re not listening to Christ. You’re listening to accountants, lawyers, psychologists, and the threats of those who are blackmailing you with their knowledge of your own sins. We’re supposed to believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, His presence embodied in the world, in Word and Sacrament and love. How are we supposed to believe this anymore?...that's what I'm sensing lies at the core of most of the anger. The world turns, indifferent to all that is good, and the one place we thought we knew we could find and understand Christ was this place – this Church. Where is He?
That, I think, is the source of the rage. We are lost enough. We are surrounded by enough uncertainty. We are enveloped by enough counter-signs and enough challenges to the very notion of Truth, the very value of Love. When we think of our Church, we want to be able to think of Christ, clearly and unequivocally. And of course, we’re reasonable people. We know that leaders are human, make mistakes and sin. We’re not wanting to place anyone on pedestals. But we want to know that this Christ of whom we sing, preach and to whom we pray is real and is what He says he is, and that as difficult as it is, casting our lot in with Him is the best way, the real way, the only way. Catholics are angry because, in the end, their own leaders have shown that fidelity to Christ is the least of their worries, the least of their concerns. And the sight of a systemic disregard for the Gospel in this area naturally leads to the question: What else? What else has this infected? What is real here and what is just one more protection racket for those who lay burdens on us, but are absolutely unwilling to bear those burdens themselves?