A Very Busy Bishop!

Bishop Patrick J. McGrath presides over the Catholic diocese of San Jose, California, located in the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area. This is, arguably, one of the most liberal areas in the United States. Thus, one would presuppose that a faithful Catholic bishop in this locale would be kept very busy speaking out on the great moral conflicts dividing our country and infecting the spiritual lives of Catholics. The violations of the natural law in this area such as abortion, homosexual "marriage," and the gruesome experimentation on human embryos and aborted babies, including the euphemistically mislabeled “Stem Cell research” are notorious. The local political and media establishments regularly engage in the justification of these evils. Thus, one would believe the bishop of the San Jose diocese would have ample opportunity to publicly exercise his teaching office on these matters.

Curiously, however, in the winter of 2004 when the "Catholic" Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, was "marrying" same-sex couples by the thousands, Bishop McGrath was strangely silent as he has been on all the above mentioned issues. Nevertheless, while this controversy was in full swing Bishop McGrath did find time to write an Op-Ed piece in the San Jose Mercury News, a week before the release of the Mel Gibson blockbuster, The Passion of the Christ, to offer some reflections on a movie which he admitted he had not seen. His February 19th, 2004 published comments, in a secular newspaper, were a pathetic attempt to denigrate the movie. The article was entitled, It's a Movie, not History, with a subtitle that read, Whatever the 'Passion Message,’ the Church Renounces Anti-Semitism. Obviously, one does not expect a Catholic bishop to grovel before Christophobes, especially in a secular paper whose editorial board had solemnly pronounced this wonderful movie "anti-Semitic." But, Catholics became even more enraged when Bishop McGrath took things a step further. In his opening remarks, he wrote:

"While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief." (Emphasis Added)

The Catholic Church has always, clearly and infallibly, taught that the Holy Scriptures are historical accounts and has condemned the proposition that they are mere theological reflections.

(See Pope St. Pius X's Decree "Lamentabili Sane, The Syllabus of Errors" Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, specifically #'s 3,16, 29, & 36).

How could a Bishop not know this? Furthermore, why would he feel the need to deny the historical truth of the Four Gospels to make an "ecumenical" point in a secular newspaper?

The St. Joseph's Men Society (www.StJosephsMen.com) wrote to his Excellency on February 29th, 2004 soliciting a response to their firm but respectful request that Bishop McGrath publicly retract the offending sentences. His statement had caused a great scandal and confusion, not only among faithful Catholics, but also among those non-Catholics who affirm the historical truth of the Gospels. In their letter, the SJMS pointed out that in paragraph 19 of The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), solemnly promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 18th, 1965, it states:

“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).”

So important is the above statement that the Church saw fit to quote it again in section #126 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In the letter, the St. Joseph’s Men asked, "How can your published opinion in the public forum of the San Jose Mercury News possibly be reconciled with the constant and unchanging Teaching of Holy Mother Church affirming the historicity of the Gospels?"

As of the date of this writing (February 2005) there has been no response from the bishop to the SJMS.

Since no response was forthcoming, [and the Bishop's chancery officials had indicated a response would not be given], the St. Joseph's Men Society and a coalition of faithful Catholic groups organized a public Rosary Procession in a downtown San Jose park on Saturday May 1st, 2004. The purpose of the procession was to honor the Blessed Mother, in her month of May, to honor St. Joseph in the city that bears his name, and to honor the office of the local Bishop, presently held by Patrick J. McGrath. Before the procession - attended by over 500 Catholics - Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics publicly pleaded with the Bishop to retract his published error and urged everyone to pray for His Excellency in respect for his apostolic office. Still, there was no response from the Bishop.

"Will the next infallible Pope of Rome, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, leave this guy, and so many others, where he is?"

My dear Kolo, the abdication of his responsibility to safeguard the flock from ravening wolves has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope's ability to issue infallible declarations on certain limited occasions.

His choice not to exercise his authority is a prudential judgement for which he will have to give account to God when he meets Him.

I pray that the next occupant of Peter's Chair will have a better understanding that the exercise of authority is a service to the Church which is needed for the salvation of the greater number of souls.

However, the Roman Church will never end up where ECUSA is because no matter how many of the hierarchy apostatise, the faith will be always as it was when it was first handed down by the saints. The adherents to the faith may not be great in number in the future, but they will always be there as no Pope, Patriarch or bishop has the authority to change one jot or tittle of it. Thus no matter how incompetent the governance of the Church at any one time, the faith will always be the faith.

Tantumergo: It doesn’t seem that the Vatican views the Deposit of the Faith as a fixed thing, based on the following excerpts from Ecclesia Dei, specifically the parts outlined in bold cause me to believe the Deposit of the Faith is very much a shifting thing, and that the hierarchy believe they most certainly can change a jot and perhaps even a whole lot.

murphE: I’d never think you’re trying to pick a fight; no bile problem. Your humours seem pretty homeostatic, your spunk notwithstanding.

Kolo (last but not least): In case you’ve never read Ecclesia Dei, I thought you might find the reading interesting.

3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)

"My dear Kolo, the abdication of his responsibility to safeguard the flock from ravening wolves has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope's ability to issue infallible declarations on certain limited occasions"

My friend, on the contrary it is precisely the problem. Claims of Papal Infallibility, howsoever limited or characterized, pre or post Vatican I, coupled with an assertion of Universal Jurisdiction have created an ecclesiology in the Roman Church where the occupant of the Throne of St. Peter, being the only authority in the Roman Church, must bear all responsibilty for the heretical teachings of any subordinate hierarch. Neither the hierarchy, nor the lower clergy nor the laity have any way at all, individually or collectively, to remedy hierarchial heresy.The Papal Infallibilty and Universal Jurisdiction are the linch pins of Roman ecclesiology and Roman ecclesiology manifestly cannot deal with any numbers of heresiarchs.

Now of course it is true that the Pope bears an awesome responsibility for the souls of the Faithful. But that responsibility, his answerability to God for his stewardship, doesn't do the fallen away Faithful any good at all. MurphE is right, its about the souls of the Faithful and their loss.

Similarly, it is clearly true that were the Church to dwindle down to a single bishop surounded by his priests and laity, the Church nevertheless would survive. That's basic. But that basic and undeniable doctrinal point does not in any way, shape or form excuse or minimize the loss of the Faith by millions on account of what is going on. Every Roman Catholic on these threads and most of the Orthodox know about the decline in attenence at Mass in the 1st World and the staggering decline in vocations to the priesthood and religious life experienced by the Roman Church over the past 50 years. It would be one thing if the Faithful who have left had left for Eastern Rite Catholicism or Orthodoxy, but they haven't in any numbers. They are either simply staying home and becoming agnostics or joing some "bring your own snake, sinners in the hands of an angry God" ecclesial assembly. You know, in my town 40 years ago there were two Protestant parishes. Now there are probably 20...all filled with former Roman Catholics.

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.