Read ’Em And Weep
By DEACON JAMES H. TONER
(Editor’s Note: Deacon James H. Toner, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of Leadership and Ethics at the U.S. Air War College, a former U.S. Army officer, and author of Morals Under the Gun and other books. He has also taught at Notre Dame, Norwich, Auburn, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Holy Apostles College & Seminary. He serves in the Diocese of Charlotte, N.C.)
- + + The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently posted a message about the Church’s “synod on synodality,” promoting seven attitudes “we can all adopt as we continue our synodal journey together.” Readers were asked which of the seven attitudes inspired them the most. The ill-considered post was greeted, however, by an understandable chorus of response ranging from confusion to anger.
One might see this ludicrous episode as only another hiccup in the episcopal euremia of the day. After all, the seven “attitudes” cheerfully, if vacuously, promoted by the USCCB were “innovative outlook,” “inclusivity,” “open-mindedness,” “listening,” “accompaniment,” “co-responsibility,” and “dialogue.”
Isn’t that nice?
No. No, it isn’t “nice” at all. In poker, the one holding the cards which seem to have won the pot will sometimes burst out with the triumphant declaration: “Read ’em and weep.” The seven “cards” promoted by the USCCB are not simply puerile. Rather, they point to an officious cast of mind — grounded in social caprice rather than in moral constancy — something which is, and ought to be, deeply troubling to anyone who considers these silly shibboleths anointed, ostensibly, to help us on our “synodal journey.” We read the USCCB “cards,” and we weep.
Any attempt to reduce serious subjects to bumper sticker slogans — “Marriage equality,” “My body — my choice,” “Love First” — invariably results in moral confusion rather than mere condensation. As the late columnist Sydney J. Harris (1917-1986) once put it: “Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there.”
An innovative outlook: To “beg the question” means assuming the truth of a proposition which is under examination. We commonly commit this fallacy by asking which innovations we ought to embrace. In fact, perhaps no changes are warranted; or perhaps such changes should be minimal.
Pope St. Pius X taught us that many are often “under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, [and embracing] other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself” (Pascendi Domenici Gregis, n. 13; italics in original).
Perhaps we need a conservative, not innovative, outlook.
Inclusivity: All are welcome into Christ’s Church, which is the most inclusive body in the world. All of us, though, are sinners, and it is by our own words and works that we decide to excommunicate ourselves from Our Lord and His Church. Our Lord accepts our decision, saying to us, “thy will be done” if and when we choose to exclude ourselves from His grace. That is why Mass always begins with the penitential rite, in which we sorrowfully acknowledge our sin and beg His mercy upon us. We are inclusive when we conform ourselves to His will, not to our own (Romans 12:2).
Open-Mindedness: To have an open mind is admirable. To have an empty head is not. We must try to discover (and conform to) truth as archaeologists, not invent truth as architects.
Listening: To whom do we listen? The madding crowd, or Christ the King (Matt. 17:5/Mark 9:7/Luke 9:35)?
Accompaniment: In Robert Bolt’s play, A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More, who refused to sign a statement saying that King Henry was head of the Church in England, was asked by a friend to sign it “for fellowship.” Bolt has More reply: “And when you go to Heaven for following your conscience and I am consigned to hell for not following mine, will you come with me for fellowship”?
Whom do we “accompany,” and how far do we go? Can it be that St. Paul was right in agreeing with the admonition: “Bad company corrupts good character”? (1 Cor. 15:33).
Co-Responsibility: The first effort at “co-responsibility” was Adam’s – “The woman you put here with me gave me the fruit” (Gen. 3:12). The words of the penitent – “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned” — are often obscured today by a welter of weak-kneed and “co-responsible” excuses: “Society made me sin.” “My parents did this to me.” “I needed the money.” Besides, is there any sin today for which we even need forgiveness?
Dialogue: When we raise our minds and hearts to God in prayer, we are not — or should not be — telling Him what to do. “Were you there,” God responds to Job, “when I made the world?” (38:4; cf. 36:15). The first public opinion poll — the ultimate “dialogue” — led to the crowd’s choice of Barabbas over Jesus. There is a point at which desirable discussion must yield to legitimate authority.
St. John Paul taught us that “Faith and Reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of Truth.” But if inchoate faith leads to flawed reasoning, then so does weak reasoning lead to wounded faith. Rather the Ten Commandments, the eight Beatitudes, the four cardinal virtues (Wisdom 8:7), and the three theological virtues (1 Cor. 13:13) than the seven myopic “attitudes” of the USCCB: read ‘em and weep.