The Bishops and the Scandal

[campbell]

I know the doctrine of infallibility is limited to doctrinal pronouncements dealing with Revealed Truth and faith and morals and that it has no application to deeds or actions. Thus, whatever errors the Church has made in history are the fault the individuals who are responsible. When Pope John Paul II in his statement on the Inquisition expressed “profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of [the Church’s] sons and daughters who sullied her face,” he was careful to exonerate the Church itself from any wrongdoing. As one commentator noted: “The holiness and infallibility of the church as the Mystical Body of Christ remain intact: Whatever evils were done by Catholics, the Catholic Church itself remains unsullied.”

My question is this: Since the Holy Spirit promised to protects His Church from error when proclaiming doctrine, could not it also protect representatives of the Church from error in the performance of deeds, as for example the bishop’s response to priests who used their authority to sexually abuse congregants? If the Holy Spirit can insure that doctrinal pronouncements are infallible and irreformable, could it not have provided protection and guidance to the bishops who were forced to deal with these sins?

While I understand this distinction between doctrine and deeds, I still have difficulty with the response “that’s they way God intended it and that’s the way it is. We can not understand God’s will, but must accept it.” I can understand God revealing to His Church His promise to protect it from doctrinal error and cloth it with infallibility. I could also understand the contrary conclusion, namely, that God’s will is by necessity interpreted by fallible human beings and, with the exception of Revealed Truth, it is therefore possible for even the best meaning and most righteous pope to occasionally err.

What I cannot understand is why God would protect His chosen representatives from erring in doctrine but still permit them, through the exercise of free will or any other means, to commit gravely sinful deeds which injure the Faithful and cause the Faithful to lose confidence in His Church and his Word. I am certain the bishops who had to deal with the transgressions of priests under their supervision prayed for guidance and I know the importance of prayer in the Catholic Catechism. In many ways the heart of the scandal is the recidivism which was possible only because of the inaction of too many bishops. All of the bishops are men of good faith who prayed for guidance who wanted to do what was right…Maybe the Faithful who have lost faith (or on the verge of losing faith) over this crises are not really Faithful but why would Holy Spirit not have intervened?

 

[BobCatholic]

campbell:

My question is this: Since the Holy Spirit promised to protects His Church from error when proclaiming doctrine, could not it also protect representatives of the Church from error in the performance of deeds,

The Holy Spirit COULD do it but He doesn’t.

Infallibility deals with faith and morals, and not discipline. The Holy Spirit doesn’t turn the faithful into robots who have no choice but to do good, or to always make good decisions. We do have free will.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

What I cannot understand is why God would protect His chosen representatives from erring in doctrine but still permit them, through the exercise of free will or any other means, to commit gravely sinful deeds which injure the Faithful and cause the Faithful to lose confidence in His Church and his Word

.

You kinda answered your own question. The exercise of free will. If God goes beyond guiding us in Truth and starts controlling us, we are merely automatons, which clobbers the possibility of true love.

By the way, my understanding is that infalliability applies only to the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium (Deposit of Faith, councils of bishops, and papal use of ex cathedra pronouncements.) An individual bishop does not possess the charism of infallibility and certainly does not possess impeccability.

Scott

 

[Lance]

campbell:

I am certain the bishops who had to deal with the transgressions of priests under their supervision prayed for guidance and I know the importance of prayer in the Catholic Catechism. In many ways the heart of the scandal is the recidivism which was possible only because of the inaction of too many bishops. All of the bishops are men of good faith who prayed for guidance who wanted to do what was right…Maybe the Faithful who have lost faith (or on the verge of losing faith) over this crises are not really Faithful but why would Holy Spirit not have intervened?

I wish I were as certain as you that the bishops had prayed for guidance. Our parish is in the middle of a sex scandel and it looks like the diocese is playing CYA by refusing a court order to release personel records. I do agree with previous posters that Holy Spirit did not intervene because of the ‘free will’ thing. The Church did not molest the kids, it was individuals, but the Church must pay. Let us pray that we are near or at the end of these scandels and we can get on with the business of saving souls.

 

[campbell]

To say that “free will” is the answer strikes me as too simple an explanation. Free will also permits human beings to make errors in their reasoning and beliefs. The question is why. Why would God have protected the Church’s representatives from making errors in explaining faith and morals but left its representatives vulnerable to error when dealing with the flock?

Once the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, an individual has free will to reject that teaching. But people who are scared by misdeeds of the Church’s representatives, whether it be a parish priest, or because a bishop failed to take appropriate action when the priest’s sins were first called to his attention, dose not have the same options as a person reflecting on Church teachings. If the Holy Spirit is going to protect the Church when it speaks on matters of faith and morals (or when the College of Cardinals selects the Pope), why would it not also provide guidance to bishops who had the responsibility of dealing with priests who gravely sinned?

Campbell

 

[Scott_Waddell]

To say that “free will” is the answer strikes me as too simple an explanation.

Well, ok it’s simple. But it is perfectly reasonable. Just like asking if baptism removes all sin, how come God doesn’t also remove our ability to sin? I don’t know. Mere history demonstrates that there is no reason to think there is any promise of impeccability for those authorized to teach in Christ’s name. I suppose God could have made it otherwise. Do you have a guess?

Scott

 

[jpusateri]

Scott Waddell:

Well, ok it’s simple. But it is perfectly reasonable. Just like asking if baptism removes all sin, how come God doesn’t also remove our ability to sin? I don’t know. Mere history demonstrates that there is no reason to think there is any promise of impeccability for those authorized to teach in Christ’s name. I suppose God could have made it otherwise. Do you have a guess?

Scott

Relevant post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=116792&postcount=4

Magnanimity:

It seems clear to me though that as James White himself says, it makes little sense and seems practically irrelevant to do so much arguing for infallible bishops if the Church Herself is not infallible. And it seems fairly clear to me that the teaching of Vatican II’s Dei Verbum and a whole host of recent theologians are unified in affirming that there is a general charism of infallibility possessed by the Church in a broad and general way.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I’m sorry, but I’m confused now. I think I’m getting mixed up over infallibility vs, impeccability.

Scoyy

 

[jpusateri]

Scott Waddell:

I’m sorry, but I’m confused now. I think I’m getting mixed up over infallibility vs, impeccability.

Scoyy

Oops. Looks like I addressed infallibility rather than impeccability. I do not believe there is any promise of impeccability to anyone.

Is there?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Ok. I’m better now. I was reading that linked post and going, “Wha–?”

Scott

 

[campbell]

Scott Waddell:

Well, ok it’s simple. But it is perfectly reasonable. Just like asking if baptism removes all sin, how come God doesn’t also remove our ability to sin? I don’t know. Mere history demonstrates that there is no reason to think there is any promise of impeccability for those authorized to teach in Christ’s name. I suppose God could have made it otherwise. Do you have a guess?

Scott

My “guess” is that it draws into question the whole issue of infallibility. Reason – or the application of natural law – in this context suggests that if God is going to make his representatives infallible in teaching faith and morals, He would also protect them from error in making decisions on how to deal with erring priests. On the other hand, if God has chosen to let free will operate and subject the hierarchy to mistakes in dealing with offending priests, it suggests the same hierarchy speaking through the Magisterium could (not necessarily is, but could) on rare occasions be wrong

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I see your point. I suppose it presents a difficulty. I’ve thought often about infallibility and wrestled with some of the difficulties. I haven’t found anything to cause me to seriously doubt it.

Scott