Attacks from within the Church on the hierarchy - unprecedented?

[FiveLinden]

As some will now I am interested in how people come to believe and the different beliefs they develop.

I have continued to read 'Church Militant’s site over the past couple of years and seen it develop from a polite but critical conservative place carefully critical of a few individuals in the hierarchy to a daily swinging attack on a huge number of Church leaders, often in the most intemperate terms.

I am not proposing a debate on Church Militant’s views but am seeking information about any similar development post-reformation in the Church. I know individuals have said all sorts of things but has there ever been the development of a significant media attacking the leadership directly, by name, and in such terms? I say significant because CM’s following seems large, it’s a multi-million operation and it covers a number of media platforms.

I have put this in Apologetics because I think it involves the reputation of the Church. I’m sure it will be moved if I am wrong about this.

 

[Crusader13]

The attacks you are referring to, are what exactly? Is there a specific article that CM released that you found to be baseless and false?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Attacks from within the Church on the hierarchy aren’t unprecedented. Historically there have been a number of cases of disputed Popes where one faction of the Church supported and even installed Person A as Pope whereas another faction supported and installed Person B. Even when it didn’t go so far as to have competing Popes, there were factions within the Church arguing with each other and criticizing this or that official. I’m not sure why you emphasize “post-Reformation” but while it’s true that there was some centralization of power after the Reformation, it’s not like every competing faction in the Church suddenly went away and everybody had exactly the same view, for instance on matters like the Jesuits there was still significant division and some Popes were more popular than other Popes.

The main reason something like Church Militant stands out is that it’s online and can be accessed by every Catholic. In the past, before the Internet, one would have to get such news through Catholic newspapers or newsletters or circulars, and often you would have to pay for these or be limited in what information you could get. However, the lack of a media platform didn’t mean that Catholics didn’t find ways to get together and grumble about the Pope if they were bent on doing so. I also think that even with the rise of Church Militant, your average Catholic in the pew is more concerned with whether their own bishop or people in their own diocese are acting in ways they don’t like because that affects them directly, for instance if the bishop shuts down their parish church or isn’t doing enough to stop sexually abusive priests in their neighborhood. And they don’t need Church Militant to point out problems in their own diocese as they’ll hear about them via the local paper or word of mouth.

 

[po18guy]

Once you identify the radicals, the embittered, the “remnant” if you will, you have realized Saint Paul’s scripture regarding factions and who is approved. We must seek out that which edifies, not that which tears down.

Unprecedented? What has changed in our modern age is that we now have the ability to broadcast our dissent and division around the world in seconds. We can develop “subscribers” We send out notifications. We tilt toward hyperbole, as it builds our base.

Truth is lost in this. 2,000 years ago, there was Judas the Galilean and Theudas. Both posed challenges to the existing order. Both fell and their followers were scattered. It will not be as dramatic in our age - but we retain the freedom to disengage from such voices, one of us at a time.

 

[Jbrady]

has there ever been the development of a significant media attacking the leadership directly, by name, and in such terms?

No. The rise of the internet and the highly democratized flow of information that comes with it has been a major game changer. The centralized Church has largely lost the ability to shape public discourse, and has lost credibility and good will because of political entanglements and scandals, which are much harder to hush up, whitewash or frame in terms favorable to the Church hierarchy. Add to that a generalized distrust of institutions of any sort that permeates Western culture and will undoubtedly continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

The internet is still in its infancy, and has already had a profound effect on the Catholic Church and just about every other religious institution in the world. There is little doubt that this is just the beginning, and that the centrifugal forces at work will only accelerate. What the final outcome will be is still unknown, but the Church of the future will become highly decentralized and fragmented. The top-down hierarchical structure is already an anachronistic relic of past times where the Church could significantly control the flow of information and exercise real power to enforce conformity. Those days are gone for good.

It’s a problem that all religious groups will have to deal with, or go extinct. Those who think that the clock can be turned back are seriously deluded.

The Catholic Church will no doubt survive in some form or another, although which form it takes remains to be seen, and depends on the initiative and vision of Church leaders. So far, there seems to be little of either, and a lot of clinging to the past.

The recent Synod on Youth was a telling testament to the speed at which these changes are progressing. The disconnect between the Church hierarchy and younger Catholics is large and growing every wider. One day, these younger Catholics will be the leaders, and I’m curious how they are going to shape the Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

. The centralized Church has largely lost the ability to shape public discourse,

It’s NEVER had this in my lifetime in the USA. I cannot remember a time in my post-Vatican II life that significant numbers of people weren’t complaining about the Church and going off and doing their own thing.

 

[Jbrady]

It’s NEVER had this in my lifetime in the USA. I cannot remember a time in my post-Vatican II life that significant numbers of people weren’t complaining about the Church and going off and doing their own thing.

It has greatly accelerated and is still accelerating. The Church hierarchy still enjoyed a fair measure of influence and authority in the US up until the 90s. The loss since then has been staggering. In Europe, even more so.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t know anything about what happened in Europe.

I disagree with your perception of the Church hierarchy. The only difference pre-90s is that there were more elderly people living who perhaps were more inclined to give a bishop the benefit of the doubt, but they were being quickly displaced throughout the 70s and 80s.

Church Militant is just doing what the Internet does - providing a central hub for everybody who is discontented to band together and make noise in a public place where it gets more noticed than if they were in smaller groups making noise largely confined within their own dioceses. I don’t care that it does this, but I don’t see it as a big pioneering game changer either.

 

[Jbrady]

A good example is the death penalty. In the 1970s, the Church hierarchy was instrumental in bringing about the abolition of the death penalty. More than instrumental. They played a leading, if not the leading role.

Now, the Pope’s teaching on the death penalty is decried as downright heretical by many far-right Catholics.

You’re right that these trends were well under way before the advent of the internet. The rise of the bourgeois in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the decline of feudalism and the redistribution of economic power in the fourteenth, the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth, the Reformation in the sixteenth, the Thirty Years War in the seventeenth, the French Revolution in the eighteenth, Napoleon and the rise of nationalism in the nineteenth, and the World Wars and the spread of liberal democracy in the twentieth all chipped away at centralized Church power. The rise of the internet is another in a chain of profound game-changers. Probably the largest since the invention of the printing press.

 

[FiveLinden]

The attacks you are referring to, are what exactly? Is there a specific article that CM released that you found to be baseless and false?

I did not say they were baseless and false. I am wondering if they are unprecedented. What did I say that led you to that misunderstanding?

 

[FiveLinden]

Most interesting replies. Thank you. I accept the magnifying effect of the internet but I still can’t think of any post-reformation attack on multiple Church leaders by an organisation within the Church. The SSPX, for example, seems meek to the point of docility in contrast. While they criticise they do not personalise or make repeated claims of criminal conduct.

 

[Crusader13]

Perhaps I mistakenly read into your post a position you weren’t advocating. I guess the language you used led me to believe that you didn’t see merit in their articles that were calling out said hierarchy members. Usually if a member of the clergy was caught doing something illegal or immoral and his actions were brought to light, not many people would use the phrase “attacking” in reference to his actions being called into question.

Usually we say things like, “Protestant apologist so-and-so, was attacking the Catholic Church again because they claim we are idolatrous for praying to the saints”.

I don’t know if I’d say “CM has been attacking McCarrick for his allegations of child abuse and corruption”.

 

[FiveLinden]

CM attacks those found guilty (except Cardinal Pell); those accused; those associate with the accused and those who say things the accused might have agreed with.

 

[commenter]

Attacks from within the Church on the hierarchy aren’t unprecedented.

Church Militant isn’t “within the Church”. It’s in the same category as National Catholic Reporter or your daily newspaper, which also have Catholics on staff, and write articles about the Church.

But the organization, as such, has no connection to the Church. It doesn’t matter if priests or bishops wrote for it. They write sometimes for the NY Times, too.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Good point, but the OP’s thread title specifies “Attacks from within the Church”. I took it to mean he was referring to attacks on the Church from other Catholics, not from other bishops or Church organizations.

And really, “The Church” means the group of all Catholics on earth, the true “church militant”, not just the Church organizations or the bishops, Magisterium, employees, clergy, religious etc.

 

[Mary888]

The rise of the bourgeois in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the decline of feudalism and the redistribution of economic power in the fourteenth, the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth, the Reformation in the sixteenth, the Thirty Years War in the seventeenth, the French Revolution in the eighteenth, Napoleon and the rise of nationalism in the nineteenth, and the World Wars and the spread of liberal democracy in the twentieth all chipped away at centralized Church power.

The Church never had any earthly power in this world. Remember the happiness as described by Christ. The Church omly got high in this world.so.people can hear her message and choose what to believe. The Church has always been, in reality a crystal.doll, that one human can break with the rear of their palm if they so desire. The devil can’t smash her but people can.
What Church had and now I think she no longer has,.is key secular leaders friendly to her. Now they are all gone. Gone in the West for progress and gone in the East because of the hypocrite post-Communist regime.
The Bride is alone and facing judgement from the world, like Her Groom did. Because she is not He, the judgement of the Church is partially right. I pray she takes it all in what is just and remains firm against what is not right.
I don’t expect the Church to ever be Christ and be able to rise.from the dead and defeat all Hell. Just to be fair. I believe she will.

 

[commenter]

Your point is accurate, in that “the Church” in the primary sense does mean all individuals. But both Canon Law, V2, and earlier documents clearly refer to the importance of “Catholic organizations”, also.

This is a crucial point in recent years because many groups have arisen that don’t exactly say they are Catholic, but imply they are. This deceit lets them draw on the credibility of the Church, and draw Catholic donations. These groups tend to be on the far Right or Far Left.

 

[Crusader13]

CM attacks those found guilty (except Cardinal Pell); those accused; those associate with the accused and those who say things the accused might have agreed with.

Well I’m having a hard time understanding your position or even what point you’re trying to make. You say that their articles aren’t baseless and not without merit, yet you obviously posted this to highlight CM’s behavior of “attacking” certain clergy members. So if by attacking you’re saying they are out of line, then I ask to which articles or stories you are referring to that speaks to their uncharitable behavior?

If by attacking you mean they are attacking error and corruption and sexual abuse, then yes I agree with you and I hope they continue with the good work they’ve been doing. I for one like that they’ve done reports on James Martin and his teachings with regards to homosexuality and the Church. And their reports against financial scandals, like what has come up recently with Cdl. Cupich or when they’ve reported on Cdl Tobins “nighty night baby” tweets.

Their work is centered around investigative journalism and their focus is on corruption within the Church and upholding authentic Catholic teachings.

 

[Finn]

Well I’m having a hard time understanding your position or even what point you’re trying to make. You say that their articles aren’t baseless and not without merit, yet you obviously posted this to highlight CM’s behavior of “attacking” certain clergy members. So if by attacking you’re saying they are out of line, then I ask to which articles or stories you are referring to that speaks to their uncharitable behavior?

The OP’s originating post suggest that their position is one of disapproval of CM, believing it’s devolved from polite, selective criticism to more frequent, intemperately worded attacks.

 

[commenter]

Their work is … upholding authentic Catholic teachings.

If you consider the Catholic Church a useful guide to discerning the Christian Truth, keep in mind CM isn’t a Catholic ministry. If you consider independence from the Catholic Church a benefit for discerning Christian Truth, welcome to Protestantism.