Is it ever justifiable to publically (or even privately) criticize a Bishop?

[Ana_v]

Or priest?

I am so conflicted. I have heard persuasive arguments on both sides. On the one hand, there is the danger of scandal in making public criticism, even if the criticism comes from a Catholic who is known to be orthodox, and the content of the criticism is true, because the criticism can give the impression of insubordination and among the ignorant, encourage dissident Catholics to persist in their error. There is also the concern that to criticize is inherently to disrespect the dignity of the office of the Bishop, who is given all authority by Christ Himself.

On the other hand, when the faith is endangered because of apparent negligence on the part of bishops, with respect to the fulfillment of the pastoral responsibilities of their high calling, it would seem that, if they do not amend themselves after a period of reasonable time, then it is up to the subordinates, laity or other, to effect a change, namely by calling out the failures of the Bishops, provided that private correction has proved ineffective or the opportunity for it is not practically possible or likely.

Surely, at least we would not think we should keep silence about prudential matters and publicized sin, such as the clerical sexual misconduct and abuse? And in speaking out, would that not constitute criticism?

I would like to share a story, omitting names of course. This occurred at my current parish, two months before I arrived ( I moved here from another state under a year ago).

In July of 2012, a parish mission was held. During one of the Masses, the visiting Mission priest, prior to distributing Holy Communion, told the congregation to not concern themselves over whether or not they had committed mortal sin, as all are invited and able to receive Communion. The deacon intervened, to contradict the priest in front of the congregation, and an intense argument ensued. The priest, apparently in an attempt to undermine the deacon’s credibility, told him " I know the teaching, I have been doing this for 40 years. How long have you, 6? "

This priest was scheduled to give a presentation to the youth, a decision that fell within the domain of authority of the Director of Religious Education. She was informed of the scandal by the deacon, and asked by him to not allow the priest to give a talk to the youth, and she followed his advice and canceled, which angered the priest. She was later called in by this priest into the pastor’s office and was severely reprimanded by him, and he even told her to go to confession for what she did! (She reported the incident, because she had felt quite threatened by his approach). It appears that the pastor tried to stay out of the whole controversy, and though he himself is orthodox in his beliefs as an individual (I can attest to this), my understanding is that his sympathies were with the mission priest, who is a personal friend of his.

Copies of this mission priest’s books have been made available for purchase at our parish, and only one of them, of the ones I opened contained a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. And among the others, one was endorsed by the Bishop.

Now, suppose the deacon has not said anything. Would a lay person have had the duty of speaking out?

link:
(Edited)

Criticize a Bishop? Not so Fast? (Crisis Magazine)

 

[devoutchristian]

I would think that such can be morally done, as long as the danger of scandal is excluded, however, one should not disrupt a liturgical service to do so.

 

[stephe1987]

It depends on the way it’s done. There is an appropriate way to do something and inappropriate ways to do something. The person closest to the problem should solve it. If you have a problem with something, talk to them first. Only tell others about the problem if you cannot reason with them. Don’t go behind someone’s back, over someone (report to their superior before telling them there is a problem), or spread gossip.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Er, I don’t see what else the Deacon was supposed to do in that situation. It sounds like he did the right thing.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

All bishops and priests are human also, and as such open to error - what we must also remember is that we are also open to error - so always look first to discernment and advice from authoritative others. Maybe initially posing the problem in ‘hypothetical’ form first.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Or priest?

I feel the title is misleading. A priest is not a bishop. I’ve come across many examples of priests teaching error in my own diocese over the years. Bishops? Very rarely, and that is limited to well know people that are creating scandal in the Church. I would be very surprised to see a bishop making this same error as this priest.

In the case given, the Deacon (who it should be noted is not a layperson) was correct in his actions, and the priest was wrong in his. With regard to a bishop, once should be much more careful in public rebuke, and IMHO should be limited to outright scandalous situations. I would think private criticism with the bishop’s office is more appropriate.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The question for me is, was it right for the deacon to rebuke the priest publically, and in the middle of a Mass at that, or would it have been preferable to have the argument offline and in private?

I (a lay person) have disagreed with priests many times and on many issues, but if I have the need to take this up with them, I tell them my views in private or write them letters or emails. Most priests I have done this with have responded amicably and listened to me and explained their positions and in some cases I ended up seeing that I was wrong and in others we agreed to disagree. I don’t think it is right to take such criticism public as many of the people present will not have sufficient background knowledge to understand the finer points of the issues and my criticism might undermine the priest’s authority or create false understandings.

In the above case, a priest cannot check every person coming forward to receive communion and cannot determine their eligibility. So unless the priest specifivally knows they are not eligible, I beleive the normal thing is to give them communion. The priest is not committing a sin if he unknowingly gives communion to somebody who is not eligible. So he should have distribited communion normally but taken up the issue afterwards. The same as if the priest were teaching some bad or incorrect theology in the homily. You don’t interrupt him then and there but you take it up afterwards. Or in really extreme cases maybe it is acceptable to walk out of the church. But again you don’t interrupt and argue then and there.

 

[Ana_v]

I feel the title is misleading.

My title question should have included priests, but my concern is primarily about Bishops, and secondly about priests. I suppose I may generalize and say all clergy. For illustrative reason’s, I shared the story about the scandalous priest, because it was something that happened locally.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

My title question should have included priests, but my concern is primarily about Bishops, and secondly about priests. I suppose I may generalize and say all clergy. For illustrative reason’s, I shared the story about the scandalous priest, because it was something that happened locally.

There are huge differences between laypeople, deacons, priests, and bishops. They cannot be used interchangeably, ESPECIALLY when dealing with a bishop. The bishop has Apostolic authority that the others don’t. Most notable of these is that the bishop grants (and removes, if necessary) the faculty to the priest to hear confessions in the first place. Even more importantly, it is the bishop who grants permission for general absolution.

With your scenario, if a bishop was involved, the bishop has the authority to grant general absolution so that the lay people may receive. The priest does not, without the bishop’s permission. There of course is the issue of whether or not the bishop should grant general absolution, which is supposed to be used in very limited circumstances.

If faced with this situation, a public rebuke of the bishop would be inappropriate by anyone (excepting possibly another bishop). Since the priest does not have the same authority, and is telling everyone that they should ignore their state of mortal sin, the Deacon was correct in his actions.

 

[Mark121359]

In the above case, a priest cannot check every person coming forward to receive communion and cannot determine their eligibility. So unless the priest specifivally knows they are not eligible, I beleive the normal thing is to give them communion.*** The priest is not committing a sin*** if he unknowingly gives communion to somebody who is not eligible.

The problem lies with what he initially told the congregation in the bolded below;

During one of the Masses, the visiting Mission priest, prior to distributing Holy Communion, told the congregation to not concern themselves over whether or not they had committed mortal sin, as all are invited and able to receive Communion.

St. Paul says,*** “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).*** The Church teaches that this is sacrilege. From the CCC;

Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us. (CCC 2120)

So if you ask me, that quote from the visiting Mission priest, "to not concern themselves over whether or not they had committed mortal sin" is very seriously flawed indeed! To receive Holy Communion unworthily is a serious abuse of the sacred body and blood of the Lord, and therefore a grave sin of sacrilege!

Peace, Mark

 

[hieukazuo4]

Topic thú v? ph?t, mình cung d?nh nói ý ki?n nhung ch?ng bi?t gi?i thÃch th? nÃo

 

[Elizabeth502]

Er, I don’t see what else the Deacon was supposed to do in that situation. It sounds like he did the right thing.

Would you please provide a link to the “quote” from Michael Voris in your signature? I guess my search engine function must be weak, because I don’t find that quote among his statements, so apparently I don’t know where to find it. Thanks.

 

[At_His_Feet_1]

In July of 2012, a parish mission was held. During one of the Masses, the visiting Mission priest, prior to distributing Holy Communion, told the congregation to not concern themselves over whether or not they had committed mortal sin, as all are invited and able to receive Communion. The deacon intervened, to contradict the priest in front of the congregation, and an intense argument ensued. The priest, apparently in an attempt to undermine the deacon’s credibility, told him " I know the teaching, I have been doing this for 40 years.

This part stood out for me.

Very concerned that attitude had been going on for a long time

 

[Ana_v]

Are we permitted to make general criticisms or indirect criticism of the bishops? For example, pointing out that not enough has been done to address the scandal of unfaithful Catholic politicians.

Or, for instance, I recently read that Fr. Frank Pavone wrote an open letter to Nanci Pelosi calling for her to “either exercise her duties as a public servant and a Catholic, or have the honesty to formally renounce them”, if one decided to post such a quotation in a social media avenue, would it be permissible to add commentary that says something like “Yes! Doing what the bishops have failed to do.” ?

I have scruples as it is, and if I take the warning about not criticizing the bishops too far, I will end up finding fault in anything I say about the bishops that isn’t a praise.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

IMHO, if one wants to “criticize” a bishop, it should be so privately and respectfully. Either meet with the bishop (might not be possible) or write a respectful letter, preferably with Canon Law references, detailing your concerns and leave it at that. The only time I would recommend going beyond that is if it involves something that is outright scandalous.

 

[Spyral]

Yes, the über trads to it all the time.