Shea vs. Dreher: Why Doesn’t JPII Just Can the American Bishops?
Okay, I imagine a number of you are following the Shea vs. Dreher debate over on Mark Shea’s Blog. Here’s my own take on the situation. As reprehensible as the actions of many of these bishops were, I am against just firing them. Given the current mood in North American society after the Sexual Revolt of the 1960’s, I feel removing these bishops would create another schism within history that would be difficult to heal. Basically, it is the same scenario as those polls that repeatedly come up with the following contradictory results: “Politicians are corrupt, fire all the congressmen and senators,” and “my congressman and my senator are great people, and I will cast my vote for them again.”
The same can be said about the current crisis. Most Catholics are disgusted with the bishops as a group, but the situation changes if you mention the name of their own bishop. Similarly, this is why the same average Catholic in the pew who was screaming for zero-tolerance a few months’ ago is now protesting the removal of Fr. So-and-So, their wonderful and energetic pastor who in a lapse of judgment did something he should not have done thirty years ago.
But getting back to the bishops, most Catholics in the pew would love to see Rome depose the American bishops who covered this stuff up, provided the bishops remain in the abstract. Come their own bishop, human contact and emotions come into play. People suddently remember that Bishop John Smith is the same bishop who ordained Uncle Fred a permanent deacon at the Cathedral, confirmed little Joseph and Mary last year at the local parish, and when he was still a Monsignor, brought grandmother viaticum every day and administered extreme unction the night before she died from cancer. Except when the Holy Father visits for a week or two every couple of years, Rome, on the other hand, is for the most part an obscure entity across the pond. In fact, even more so than the bishop two dioceses over who covered up sexual misconduct among the clergy. Thus to depose a bishop is extremely dangerous, since it often provokes a long-term schism that becomes, with a couple generations, nearly impossible to heal.
If JPII has not removed any bishops, I would venture to guess it is because of the Church’s prior bad experiences in this regard. Keep in mind 1054. Patriarch Michael of Constantinople was suppressing and persecuting the small Latin community in Constantinople, and he was also not to popular with the civil authorities. Numerous faithful were calling upon Rome to intervene. So Rome sent over legates to investigate, and one of them, who was as arrogant as the Patriarch, excommunicated Patriarch Michael as an individual. A thousand years’ later, the personalities involved are now dead, the initial politics are long forgotten, but the Church is still divided. Only handful of individuals were mutually excommunicated, but communion between the West and the vast majority of Byzantium broke down as a result. Despite their dislike of Patriarch Michael, he was the local boy they all knew.
Remember that after the Arian crisis, which as a crisis wreaked more devastation on the universal Church than the current crisis with abusive clergy, Pope Liberius wanted to depose all the Arian bishops. He was stopped by St. Anthanasius, the most well-known and solid defender of the orthodox position during the whole crisis. St. Athanasius had suffered more than any other individual the wrath of the Arian heretics, but he nevertheless pleaded with and convinced Liberius to leave the vast majority of the formerly Arian bishops in office. Basically, he felt the majority were stupid rather than malicious, and deemed that having learned their lesson they would not make the same mistake in the future. However, to remove them would only re-ignite the heresy since they were the ones known by the locals.
