Posted on 06/25/2002 12:48:29 PM PDT by traditionalist
Dr. Warren Carroll is well known to many good Catholics for his fine historical work and for having founded Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. Many of us have been instructed and edified by this or that segment of his work over the years, and for these contributions of his we are indeed grateful.
It is well known that Dr. Carroll is not a traditionalist. But he isn't of the Fr. Brian Harrison variety, i.e., someone who, while not himself a traditionalist, moves easily in traditional circles and shares at least some of our concerns. To the contrary, Dr. Carroll's opposition to traditionalism is full of anger and vitriol and is, strangely, scarcely informed by Church history at all. Moreover, as is fairly typical of those who take such a point of view, Dr. Carroll uses abusive language toward traditionalists that he would not dream of using against outright enemies of the Faith, such as Cardinal Mahony.
What I want to discuss here, though, is one specific incident: Dr. Carroll's commentary on the recent remarks by Most Rev. Fabian W. Bruskewitz, Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, following the recent bishops' meeting in Dallas. Obviously, none of what I shall say below is intended as a personal attack on Dr. Carroll; I am, instead, critical of his views, which only further entrench those who have done so much damage to the Church over the years. Some of us, and not only traditionalists, consider it tragic that such a distinguished career as Dr. Carroll's should end in a denouement at once counterproductive and sad.
After the bishops' meeting, Bishop Bruskewitz said that "this hapless bench of bishops" had failed to address the roots of the crisis, and he urged action by the laity. He cited as an example St. Catherine of Siena, "an illiterate nun who is now a doctor of the Church." "She was brave enough to tell the pope off when he needed telling off," said Bruskewitz. "She did her duty. We must too." "When an audience member asked Bruskewitz why Pope John Paul II has given the Church in the U.S. so many lousy bishops," columnist Rod Dreher reports, "the bishop of Lincoln said he had no idea." But Bruskewitz went on to cite a letter from St. Bernard of Clairvaux to a pope of his day, in which the saint observed that if the pope was going to go to hell, it would be for his failure to remove bad bishops. "I did pass that letter on to [the current pope]," Bruskewitz said. According to Dreher, the bishop "went on to praise the Holy Father for coming up with beautiful words and noble sentiments, but to fault him for failing to implement them through responsible governing of the Church."
Now here is the beginning of Dr. Carroll's commentary on the good Bishop's comments: "Bishop Bruskiewicz [sic] is solidly orthodox and one of our best bishops, but he should not be criticizing the Pope, who has taken firm steps against this scandal." Ah yes, we mustn't forget the Vatican's "firm steps." As I recall, weeks after the scandal broke the Pope remarked that pedophilia is "rightly considered a crime by society." As if that weren't enough, he then summoned the American cardinals to Rome for a meeting, at which he made clear that of course not a single one of them would be replaced over the scandal. In fact, word has it that John Paul is seeking a Vatican appointment for Cardinal Law (which of course the entire world will interpret as a promotion). All of this has done wonders for the Church's image around the world.
If those are "firm steps," I'd hate to hear that Carroll's Christendom College takes "firm steps" against, say, plagiarism. Imagine: "Plagiarism is rightly considered dishonest by society. If you should be caught covering up this crime, we shall invite you to Rome, after which time we may consider an appropriate Vatican promotion."
Dr. Carroll went on: "Perhaps Bishop Bruskiewica [sic] was frustrated that the American bishops did not act sooner and more decisively. But he was at the conference in Dallas and had his chance to persuade them. Now he should come to their support and not divide the Church further." "We should give the bishops' policy time and opportunity to work before we start condemning it," Dr. Carroll concluded. "I wish myself they had done more, such as banning the ordination of homosexuals and investigating the scandal of the seminaries pointed out by Michael Rose in his book Goodbye, Good Men, but I am not going to get on a soapbox to say so."
It is impossible to parody this statement. Dr. Carroll mentions Michael Rose's book, which is filled with examples of unbelievable dereliction of duty among the U.S. bishops. We learn there that certain American seminaries have actually earned nicknames that indicate their overwhelmingly homosexual orientation: Notre Dame in New Orleans is popularly known as "Notre Flame," while St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore is referred to as "The Pink Palace." (The bishops, we are told, somehow managed not to know anything about this.)
Consider: our bishops have decided as of the Dallas meeting not even to bother investigating the seminaries (since, of course, they know about their condition all too well) or to make any investigation into the root causes of the scandals. One bishop has the courage to stand up and denounce the farcical proceedings of some of the most miserable shepherds in the history of the Church, and Dr. Carroll considers it top priority not to support such a man of principle, but rather to tell him to stop "dividing the Church." Apparently we'd rather have unanimous absurdity than suffer any intelligent dissent. In Dr. Carroll's mind, one bishop speaking up in favor of more decisive action and a better slate of American bishops would do the Church a better service by shutting up and getting with the program. Is any refutation necessary?
The fact is, not a single bishop rose even to second Bishop Bruskewitz's proposal that a study be conducted to look into how the influx of homosexuals and dissenters into the Church had paved the way for the present crisis. Not one. Judging from Dr. Carroll's remarks, this is not enough of a source of concern for anyone to wish to speak about it or criticize it. What (if anything) would strike Dr. Carroll as sufficiently grave as to justify lay resistance to prelates (expressly encouraged by St. Thomas Aquinas) if not the present case?
Yes, we probably shouldn't be ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood, especially in light of Pope John XXIII's 1961 directive on the matter, now should we? And perhaps we should look into some of the sewers we dignify as seminaries. We've heard only around 10,000,000 stories since Vatican II of orthodox seminarians being persecuted, sexual perversions encouraged, and orthodox dogma laughed at. Maybe someone really ought to look into modern American seminary training, don't you think?
All of this may be true, but Dr. Carroll assures us that he is "not going to get on a soapbox to say so"! Moral collapse is occurring all around us, but far be it from us poor laymen to speak out against it. (Again, this posture sounds curiously like the neo-Catholic parody of preconciliar Catholicism, when Catholics were supposedly expected simply to "pay, pray, and obey.") Some would consider this rather a strange order of priorities. Meanwhile, non-Catholics are given the impression that Catholics are required by their faith to act like idiots and wimps, and never to criticize people in power even when they have rightfully brought down upon themselves the condemnation of the civilized world. Not exactly a shot in the arm for evangelism, is it?
I can think of no saint whom we are invited to imitate for his quiet acquiescence in scandal, but since neoconservatives (or neo-Catholics, as Chris Ferrara and I call them) have done nothing but defend novelty for the past four decades, I hardly expect this to give them pause.
Dr. Carroll would doubtless be the first person to condemn the pre-Vatican II Church (the great pastime of the neoconservative) for its "clericalism," from which the Council was supposed to have emancipated us, but here we surely have the worst clericalism of all. Under the bad old kind of clericalism, lay initiative was stifled (a point refuted in a book I have coming out next year), priests controlled everything, and Father was never questioned. Dr. Carroll's Vatican II brand of clericalism consists of a kind of Catholic quietism, according to which the worst thing a loyal Catholic can do is to speak out against injustice and offenses against the Faith when perpetrated by the bishops. Apparently, the only time that a layman is permitted to criticize a bishop is when that bishop himself attempts to call his fellow shepherds to moral account. Then it's open season.
It doubtless brings a smile to the faces of the American bishops to see Dr. Carroll dutifully informing his readers that the most important thing for lay Catholics to do is to follow the American bishops' program and not to criticize them. This is one of the reasons Dr. Carroll criticizes traditionalists: we speak out against the bishops' practically ceaseless catalogue of outrages. Extreme liberal Richard P. McBrien once observed, "Criticism of the extreme right by moderate conservatives is far more effective than by moderate progressives." To those who follow Dr. Carroll's lead, therefore, I am sure the Left congratulates you: you're doing their work for them.
Should Dr. Carroll deign to reply to anything I have written here (and I do not expect him to), I can all but guarantee he will do what he always does when dealing with traditionalists: ignore entirely the substantive issues at stake, and focus instead on trumpeting his strange theory of "loyalty" to the Church, according to which it is better to sit back and do nothing than to oppose those officeholders who are doing her damage. After the way he treated even Dr. Alice von Hildebrand when she complained of communist infiltration of the Church under the watch of a previous Pope, I hardly expect to receive anything better.
Dr. Carroll's profoundly misguided and indeed destructive rebuke of Bishop Bruskewitz reflects the strategy that the entire neoconservative stable of conciliar apologists, incapable of making distinctions or appreciating nuance, have followed since Vatican II. All criticism of Rome is ipso facto an example of disobedience and perhaps even schism. Everything in the documents of Vatican II is beyond reproach (a position Cardinal Ratzinger concedes we need not hold, by the way). Pope John XXIII was inspired when he decided to ease up on ecclesiastical discipline. The postconciliar catastrophe has nothing to do with the Council, but is a mysterious scourge whose origins are simply unknown. The best strategy is to defend every novelty as if it were revealed dogma, and to cast into outer darkness traditionalists whose intellects reel at the ceaseless series of about-faces they are expected to accept without explanation-but above all, to do nothing. Not speak up, not protest, not demand that Rome get our house in order. Nothing.
I think the present state of the Church provides a pretty good estimate of how well that strategy has succeeded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.