[Catholic Caucus] A Modest Proposal for Reeducating the Bishops

The time has come to reeducate our bishops, beginning with how they use—and manifestly misuse—the English language. Our Lord gave us a clear precept about language: “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from the Evil One” (Matthew 5:37). And likewise, from the Old Testament: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). These bishops, and sadly even the supreme pontiff, have, in proclaiming and teaching about immigration and other societal issues, fallen prey to the scourges of muddy thinking, faulty analysis, and false equivalence.

This woeful state of affairs recently came to my attention after some time spent in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament at my local parish church. On the way out, I spotted some literature on a table at the back of the nave. There were two documents: Pope Leo’s “Message of the Holy Father for the 9^th World Day of the Poor” and, from the bishops of my home state (New York), “For You Too Were Once Aliens.” Add to that statements or interview answers coming from the Vatican and Pope Leo and the impression we are left with is that the institutional Church is confused about real distinctions in thinking about both secular law and sacred teaching.

Take first the pope’s comments regarding the USCCB statement on immigration. After stating that countries do have a right to control their borders, he went on to say: “When people have lived good lives—many of them for 10, 15, 20 years—treating them in a way that is, to say the least, extremely disrespectful, and with instances of violence, is troubling.” Here is the crux of the problem. The “good lives” he refers to are based on a transgression of the law. The U.S. bishops in their teaching document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship state: “The Church’s teaching is clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means” (20).

Today’s churchmen will try to talk around that issue, paying lip service to Church Tradition that laws must be respected, as in these lines from the New York bishops’ statement:

Note the contradictory mention of “law-abiding.” What that means is a life lived within the law after an initial breaking of the law. But need we be surprised? Our culture now equates all “committed” relationships with sacramental marriage. Pronouncements from the time of Pope Francis such as Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans strongly suggest that both adulterous and homosexual relationships are to be treated by the Church as equivalent to sacramental Catholic marriage. Thankfully, Pope Leo has drawn the line at polygamy and polyamory.

This mess of moral equivalence is not confined to marriage. In recent decades, the Church has issued documents and acted as though other religions are equal to Catholicism in their ability to offer men a true path to life with God. Fratelli Tutti and the Abu Dhabi document from Pope Francis join the Assisi prayer gatherings and Pope Leo’s marking of the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate as prime examples.

We might include a reexamination of the concepts of “Gospel,” “preaching,” and “mission” in our pedagogical approach to the bishops. We could start with Holy Scripture joined to the ostensible foundation of the postconciliar Church, Lumen Gentium from Vatican II: “The church, mindful of the Lord’s command, ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mark 16:15) takes great care to encourage the missions” (22).

That seems no longer to be the case, as preaching Christ seems to have fallen by the wayside, replaced by concerns over our carbon footprint, immigration, ecumenism, etc. Pope Francis was known to have condemned “proselytizing,” emphasizing instead witness and living in a certain way. To all of which the late Fr. Thomas Dubay wrote in 1985’s Faith and Certitude: “Not only does a diluting of the gospel never convert the world, it fails likewise to aid the spiritual growth of those who are fully prepared to accept the undiluted message” (65)

Another abuse of language is how the bishops conflate three distinct terms: migrant, immigrant, refugee. The last is used to give cover to the others because refugees have a distinct status in law as persons fleeing from situations where they justifiably fear for their lives. The problem is that most immigrants are not refugees; they are seekers of better material conditions. Here is another opportunity for retraining the bishops, in this case reminding them that they are called—as successors to the apostles—to be shepherds.

What do shepherds do? They guide, feed, and protect their flocks. In the case of people, that means shepherds should try to keep their sheep from straying or leaving. They should try to improve the flock’s material conditions—or better yet, they should help the flock learn how to improve their own conditions. That is a cornerstone of Catholic social teaching.

Bishops both here and in the immigrants’ countries of origin need to answer the question: Do they want to make the world better? Or do they want to let people run away from problems and burden someone else? The charitable approach to economic immigrants who put themselves and others at risk, further impoverish their native places, spend resources in travel, break the laws of the destination country, and place a burden on their new residence is: “No. You need to go home and fix those places.”

To Pope Leo’s credit, he seems to have worked hard to improve living conditions in Peru when he ministered there. But the problem remains with the bishops: open borders, like the new paradigm of false mercy preached by the modern Church, insists that problems don’t need to get fixed—God will just wipe the slate clean without requiring a change of sinful behavior. In the same way, those who trespass into this country are essentially given a free pass, despite lip-service paid to the rule of law.

As if the dismantling of moral and legal norms wasn’t bad enough, we also have to watch as the Church’s prelates “rebrand” saints to wield in their modernist agenda. Cardinal Bergoglio led the way when he took the name Francis upon accepting the pontificate. Instead of the authentic Franciscan charism of zealous preaching, deep respect for the liturgy, and imitation of Christ, Pope Francis focused on a new form of universalism or indifference and collaborating with the secular goals of climate change and associated issues.

The New York bishops try the same approach in their document by claiming St. Frances Cabrini for their effort to normalize mass immigration to the Empire State. Mother Cabrini, an Italian who immigrated legally and who ministered to the material and spiritual needs of immigrants, became an American citizen. The New York bishops encourage people to sign a so-called “Cabrini Pledge” in order to “stand in solidarity with immigrants and refugees.” This proves that the reeducation program also needs a lesson or two about not using the Faith as a political tool.

We hear much from the Church of today about “dialogue.” Josef Pieper, in Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power, reminds us: “Any discourse detached from the norms of reality is at the same time mere monologue. What does it mean, after all, to be detached from the norms of reality? It means indifference regarding the truth.” Is that what the bishops want? Because the sheep have a right to know.

That seems no longer to be the case, as preaching Christ seems to have fallen by the wayside, replaced by concerns over our carbon footprint, immigration, ecumenism, etc. Pope Francis was known to have condemned “proselytizing,” emphasizing instead witness and living in a certain way. To all of which the late Fr. Thomas Dubay wrote in 1985’s Faith and Certitude: “Not only does a diluting of the gospel never convert the world, it fails likewise to aid the spiritual growth of those who are fully prepared to accept the undiluted message” (65)

frankly, I doubt that any education or re-education classes could help much.

there’s that thing about trying to teach old dogs new tricks

plus a couple of my favorite Eric Blair (George Orwell) quortes:

“”Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”.

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink”.

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.