The betrayal of silence and complicity

"The problem isn't so much the dissenting Catholics; it's the people on our side who will do nothing, or even abet the liberals.... It's the betrayal of the modcons [moderate conservatives] and the neocons that is the worst betrayal." Thus wrote Dale Vree in a New Oxford Note back in May of 2006 (New Oxford Review, pp. 23-24).

In the current issue of the NOR, again in a New Oxford Note -- this one entitled "A Layman Advises Laymen to Hide Under the Table" -- Vree picks up this theme in connection with an editorial by the President of Catholics United for the Faith (CUF), Leon Suprenant (pictured right), in the May/June issue of Lay Witness (the official publication of CUF). I used to subscribe to Lay Witness. I'm not quite sure why I dropped the subscription. Perhaps it was that the articles didn't seem that informative or challenging. Yet I've always appreciated the ministry of CUF, which has a respectable history of solidly orthodox work since its founding by H. Lyman Stebbins in 1968. I remember being impressed by some of James Likoudis's work published by CUF. As far as I know, Leon Suprenant has done a perfectly commendable job since assuming the leadership of CUA. Yet Vree makes use of some otherwise unobjectionable and even commendable remarks from Suprenant's editorial to raise what I believe are some very important questions about our proper disposition and comportment towards the Church hierarchy amidst the crisis the Church faces today. Vree has, at least, articulated for me questions that I have inchoately found myself asking quite frequently -- uncomfortable questions, which, I think, demand clear answers. See what you think.

Suprenant writes in his editorial: "A Church that is serious about being universal (i.e., 'catholic') has to face the challenge of holding fast amidst diversity.... This can be a particular challenge when those in authority in the local Church seem to be part of the problem. What is the laity to do under those circumstances?" The term "diversity" here is undefined, and perhaps a trifle unexpected here, given the context of cultural wars, and such. Anyway, he answers with four points:

(1) "We can't control the actions of others, but we surely can take it upon ourselves to strive to become saints. At the judgment, we will not be asked about our bishop or pastor, but we will be accountable for what we did with our own talents."

A perfectly noble sentiment. I have heard this sort of counsel frequently, as I'm sure many of you have; and I believe there is wisdom in it -- to a point. However, as Vree points out, Pope Felix III said, "Not to oppose error is to approve of it." Again, as Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Vree writes: "Yes, depending on our talents, God might ask us if we stood up to a cowardly bishop or a dissident or weak-kneed pastor. Suprenant seems to think that saints are mild and gentle. However, St. Paul rebuked St. Peter to his face. St. Catherine of Siena challenged her pope. St. Thomas Aquinas said, 'When the faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public.' When the majority of the Catholic bishops were Arians, St. Athanasius fought and defeated the Arians -- and is the crisis in the Church today any worse than it was in the Arian crisis? You will notice that all these figures were saints, some of the greatest saints in Church history. As Dietrich von Hildebrand says in The Devastated Vineyard, 'Should the faithful at the time of the Arian heresy...have limited themselves to being nice and obedient to the ordinances of these bishops instead of battling the heresy? Is not fidelity to the true teaching of the Church to be given priority over submission to the bishop?'"

(2) Suprenant says: "Offer it up."

Vree comments: "Yes, you can offer it up, but you can take action as well. God is not just your errand boy." I respect the respectful submissiveness with which pious souls have submitted to unconscionable injustices in the faith that God would deliver them; and we've all heard stories of the Saints who were miraculously delivered by God after they patiently submitted to all sorts of abuses, misunderstandings, and injustices from superiors. But when the abuses imperil the faith and morals of the faithful and extend to the dishonoring of God, is this something that can be suffered in meek silence and "offered up" as though it were a sacrifice of obedience to God? I wonder.

(3) Suprenant says: "Since bishops and pastors are our spiritual fathers, we are commanded to honor them as such by the Fourth Commandment.... [and] encourage a healthy, positive loyalty and reverence toward ... our spiritual fathers."

Here again, I'm all-too-conscious of the need for reverencing our spiritual Fathers, from the Pope down to our parish priests. On the other hand, Vree comments: "Invoking the Fourth Commandment is quite a stretch! Two-thirds of our bishops did nothing about the priestly sex scandals; they just moved the pederast priests around. Several of our bishops have been exposed as active homosexuals. Who would want to give 'healthy, positive loyalty and reverence' to those bishops? That would just be enabling them." It's a legitimate question animated by a legitimate concern.

(4) Suprenant says: "We should pray for an increase of faith, that we might see in our bishops and priests, despite their human frailty and any perceived shortcoming, 'the Lord's anointed.'"

This makes me think of David in the Old Testament, who refused to kill King Saul when he had the opportunity, as well as just cause, in that Saul was out to slay him for no good reason; and David's refusal to kill Saul was based on the fact that he was the "Lord's anointed." So this argument carries considerable weight. Here Vree writes: "But as Jesus said, 'From everyone who has been given much, much more will be demanded. And from the one trusted with much, much more will be expected' (Lk. 12:48). 'The Lord's anointed' are held to higher standards." True enough. But how does this bear on the question of how we comport ourselves toward our bishops and priests? Vree offers the harsh reality of the following examples of "the Lord's anointed":

• "If the sexual victims of Fr. Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, 'the Lord's anointed,' didn't create such a ruckus over 30 long years, nothing would have happened."
• "The Archbishop of Seattle, Raymond Hunthausen, was also 'the Lord's anointed.' In his Archdiocese, divorced Catholics were being admitted to Holy Matrimony without an annulment. Intercommunion was practiced in many Seattle parishes. Homosexual groups got archdiocesan support, among many other abuses. Our friend Erven Park and many others provided documents and testimony to the Holy See, which the Holy See would probably have not known about otherwise."
• "If conservative Catholics didn't create an uproar about dissident Fr. Richard McCormick, 'the Lord's anointed,' the former Archbishop of New Orleans, Francis Schulte, would never have canceled McCormick's lecture in his Archdiocese in January 1997."

"No," he says, "silence is not golden; it's yellow."

Is that the bottom line, then? Is the betrayal of silence and complicity simply a betrayal of cowardice? Or is it something different? Is it a betrayal rooted in an erroneous conception of the role of the laity vis-a-vis the clergy and their respective obedience owed to the Church and, thus, to God? Or is this no betrayal of silence and complicity at all? Is this exactly what we should be doing and no more -- praying in silence for our clerics, for our Church, for better days, "offering up" the sufferings and abuses and scandals of our present times, waiting for the Lord to act in His time? Your thoughts?