By DONALD DeMARCO
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan, had some sharp criticisms of certain bishops who were involved in the October Synod on the Family. His criticisms, originally published in the Polish magazine Polonia Christiana, warrant both close attention and further amplification. Bishop Schneider found it most disconcerting that these bishops were attempting to “legitimate their infidelity to Christ’s word by means of arguments such as ‘pastoral need,’ ‘mercy,’ and ‘openness to the Holy Spirit’.” At the same time, they castigated more orthodox members of the synod as being “intransigent,” “traditionalist,” “rigid,” or “scrupulous.”
Orthodox Catholics are only too familiar with being labeled in such unflattering terms.
Psychologist Abraham Maslow, in his book, Toward a Psychology of Being, speaks of “ortho-psychology” as a perception which does justice to its object. He points out that it takes far less psychic energy to place people in a category than it does to see them in their truth. He refers to this deficient form of cognition as “a kind of taxonomy, a classifying, a ticketing off into one file cabinet or another.”
Just as theological orthodoxy does justice to the truth of Christ’s words, psychological orthodoxy does justice to the perceived person or thing.
Orthodoxy, which seems to be under suspicion these days, is allied with two things that are, ironically, not under suspicion at all, namely justice and rectitude. All the major professional sports have seen fit to utilize reviews of controversial plays. The purpose of the review, as all sports commentators attest, is “to get the call right.” “Orthodoxy,” which means “the right teaching,” is now enshrined in sports. Why, then, should it be still “under review” in theology?
The precipitous labeling of orthodox Catholics in negative terms is an expression of prejudice. Gordon W. Allport, in his excellent work, The Nature of Prejudice, expresses his indebtedness to Thomistic moralists who define prejudice as “thinking ill of others without sufficient warrant.” This definition, however, is deficient inasmuch as it omits the fact that in certain instances prejudice can favor another without sufficient warrant. Dr. Allport, therefore, prefers the more expanded definition of prejudice as: “A feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience.”
Prejudice, of course, is precipitous and unjust. But it is also hurtful of its victims and ignores what needs to be done, specifically, a fair assessment of the issue at hand. There is a strong inclination in people to be “nice.” We routinely wish each other a “nice day” and often find the same expression typed on our receipts. But Christianity is not simply about being nice. Its central symbol is a cross, and Christians are asked to pick up their own cross on a daily basis.
When bishops try to be nice to people and speak of being welcoming, accepting, and merciful, they run the risk of finding themselves in opposition to more orthodox Christians who choose to follow Christ. Paradoxically, the “nice” Christians find themselves not being very nice to those Christians who are more orthodox. Niceness does not go very far, and certainly lacks the depth that a unifying religion demands. It was not “nice,” one supposes, for Christ to tell the woman at the well not to sin anymore, or to admonish the taxpayers, or to announce, at the Last Supper, the presence of a betrayer. Niceness does not go far enough to include justice, truth, sin, and repentance.
The bishops that Bishop Schneider is criticizing may be reflecting a prevalent attitude of lay people who are wont to divide Catholics into the spurious categories of “liberal” and “conservative.” It is incumbent on lay people, therefore, to seek a more honest, just, and orthodox approach to their religion.
Prejudice aside, George Cardinal Pell of Australia offers us words of reassurance at a time when there is widespread confusion along doctrinal lines. “In seeking to be merciful,” he tells us, “some want to open up Catholic teaching on marriage, divorce, civil unions, homosexuality in a radically liberalizing direction, whose fruits we see in other Christian traditions.” He emphasized that “the task now is to reassure good practicing Catholics that doctrinal changes are not possible” and urged them “to take a deep breath, pause, and to work to prevent deeper divisions and radicalizing of factions.”
These words echo those of St. Augustine who consoled his flock in the fourth century by reminding them: “Whatsoever we bishops may be, you are safe, who have God for your Father and His Church for your mother” (Contra litteras Petiliani III, 9, 10).
+ + +
(Donald DeMarco is a senior fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Conn., and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. Some of his recent writings may be found at Human Life International’s Truth & Charity Forum.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress