Can There Be Any Public Criticism Of Bishops?

Can There Be Any Public Criticism Of Bishops?


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.