In a recent issue of The Remnant, Dr. Thomas Woods Jr. wrote an article in response to John Pacheco's Eight Answers to Thomas Woods [and other Neo-Traditionalists]. Courtesy of CAI, that article, entitled Defending the Indefensible, is now up on CAI's website for public viewing. Pacheco strikes up the band and the bubbly, offering this response. Dr. Woods comments from the article are in red. Pacheco's rebuttals are in blue.
One of Pacheco’s points is a fairly standard one: we traditionalists insist on “pretending that the Church existed in Camelot for 1958 years.” Both Pacheco and his neo-Catholic cohorts seem especially attached to this particular caricature of our position. Like all those who defend revolutions, the neo-Catholics feel positively compelled to denigrate the Church’s past. The situation in the Church prior to the Council simply has to have been full of flaws. It is almost with delight that they point them out. Anything to make the post-Vatican II fiasco not seem too abnormal.
Like most neo-traditionalists, Dr. Woods believes that if he can flip the coin two or three times without it coming up "tales", he can then show his audience that there really is no other side to the coin after all. But the fact is that there is another side to the coin. There always is. The difference between the two of us is that I recognize this fact while he does not. While I am willing to concede that many things sure look worse today than they were in Camelot, he is very hesitant to admit that the cancer in Camelot was already present before Vatican II, except that, like all diseases and parasites, they lay relatively hidden before the full measure of their visible decay becomes manifest. Dr. Woods and the rest of his Lawrence Welk bubblie guys long for a manufactured nostalgia, something akin to the Kennedy presidency and the Beaver Cleaver show. But like Kennedy - a good Latin mass Catholic who didn't even know the most basic tenets of the faith - everything sure looked religious. And that, in the end, is what really counts. The look, you see. As long as you knew the right latin words and wore a nice suit to Church, everything was just swell.
Never mind that these good looking Latins collapsed almost over night when that Traditional Catholic guy, Frank Colton, invented the pill. Never mind that, despite St. Pius X's heroic charge to put down Modernism within the Church by instructing his bishops to crack down on modernists, his noble attempts would not be ultimately successful. By the time, Vatican II rolled around, Modernism was comfortably seated in the Church. No amount of papal legislation could stop the torrent. Never mind that our Latin Catholic friends completely abandoned the actual faith of their fathers with not so much as lifting a finger to actually learn the faith and challenge the depraved underpinnings of secularism at the time. Never mind all that. Pre-Vatican II laxity was not the real cause. Vatican II Catholics were just beamed in over night and those poor Latins were raptured up to heaven in such a way that would make even Tim Lahaye blush. After all, the "post-Vatican II fiasco", as Dr. Woods puts it, has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with the failure of the Pre-Vatican II Church to defeat modernism at its core. Nothing, nothing, nothing.
Hit it, Mr. Welk. Pop. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
No one claims that there were no problems at all before the Council. The point is this: how many people in 1958 had to worry about –
- their local
parish: would the Mass be an ordeal, or even a sacrilege?
- religious education: would their children be taught
Catholicism?
- Catholic schools (need I say more?)
- institutionalized irreverence and profanation
- entire religious orders no longer recognizably Catholic
- a politically leftist hierarchy
- being told by clergy that their traditional morality was
“intolerant”
- the complete disappearance of any talk of converting their
non-Catholic friends and neighbors
- major prelates flagrantly denying Catholic doctrine
- the Pope giving a pectoral cross (a symbol of authority) to a
pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality Anglican “Archbishop”
of Canterbury
Perhaps it wasn’t Camelot, but who in his right mind wouldn’t rather live two generations ago, before we had the opportunity to be exposed to these particular blossoms of the springtime of Vatican II?
Here's a newsflash for you, Dr. Woods: most neo-Catholics fully concede many (although perhaps not all) of your criticisms. Have we not eyes to see? Of course we have. We simply disagree with you on how to combat the problems.
Most of your complaints are really directed at the Catholic hierarchy's failure to teach and preserve the faith. Let's examine this idea carefully and see what comes of it.
The first question that we must ask is: why not just simply choose a "good bishop" in the first place instead of going through the headaches and politics of removing a bishop from his See? Are we really to believe that the Pope wants incompetent or doctrinally unsound leaders of the flock? That does not make much sense. OK, then could the process be flawed? Not really. There are sufficient checks in place to ensure that generally speaking better candidates are chosen. So then, we are left with some scary conclusions.
Have you ever considered, much as it seems unbelievable, that the current slate of bishops we have in the Western world is the best we have to offer? In other words, we could have far worse bishops in positions of power. As I hear the howls of laughter coming from my Traditionalist friends, I want them to stop and think for a moment and humour me: why is that not a theoretical possibility? The second point is related to the first. If, generally speaking, we have the "best of a bad bunch", what does that say of the pool of candidates Rome has been given to make a decision? Answer: the pool needs some cleaning. In fact, I find it quite humorous to read the endless bleating and moaning among my trad friends about what crappy bishops Rome appoints. If we could only be a fly on the wall every Saturday evening in the Pope's apartment, we'd hear the other side of the story: "Gosh darn it, Guiseppi. What the heck is this? Larry, Mo, and Curly yet again? Please don't make me appoint one of these guys."
But this brings us to yet another question. From whence do these priests come? They come from and are influenced by the current culture of death. Now, then, let us see if we can understand this simple connection: strong culture, strong bishops with a time delay. Ergo, if you want strong bishops, you evangelize the culture first. You need to squeeze the orange before you get the juice. Incidentally, this explains a strong hierarchy in Pre-V2 days and a weak hierarchy in Post-V2 days. The culture in the decades immediately preceding Vatican II was already beginning to degenerate, thereby influencing the quality of the next generation of bishops.
The second question is the more direct one. Now that we are in this situation, however, why can't we work for the long term by evangelizing the culture and thereby fostering holy and strong bishops AS WELL AS removing the weak bishops already in place?
That's a legitimate question. Let's take a look at that.
#1 - There have been bishops who have been reproached and reprimanded. Some have even been suspended from their office. Admittedly, the numbers have not been very high, but then again, mass suspensions are not a real alternative as we shall soon discover.
#2 - Just because it's not available for public commentary, we have no idea of the pressure the Vatican is applying to individual bishops. That is not the way the Church operates. It does not call a news conference every time a bishop fails in his office. Americans are great for parades and flash, but that does not necessarily translate into how the universal church handles these matters.
#3 - If we begin to single out one bishop for removal, where will the inquisition stop? The ousted bishop will rightfully ask that the criteria be applied fairly and uniformly. And then? Well, then you have a situation of a complete purging of virtually the entire hierarchy of the U.S., at least according to Dr. Woods. He writes confidently:
"It cannot be emphasized enough: the present slate of bishops – virtually the entire lot of them – would have been considered appalling and reprehensible just two generations ago."
Yeah! Damn right! Why not? Get rid of them all. In fact, why should we stop at the U.S.? How about the whole Western world? O.K. Why not? Let's do it. Very well, then, what are we left with? We are left with 1250 vacant Sees to fill. And who, pray-tell, are going to fill these Sees? A currently orthodox priesthood who will do a much better job? Yeah, right. If you believe that you've obviously fallen victim to Canada's pot laws. And what happens when the next Moe is just as bad or perhaps even worse than the guy you booted out? What then? More bouncing? Hopefully at this point Woods’ eyes are open at least wide enough to perceive that Rome should not in the business of babysitting and bouncing. The culture gets the bishops that it wants. Rome's job is to convince the culture to open themselves up to Christ and select, for themselves, holy men who will guard the truth.
#4 - And what about this little judicial and legislative war that we've started? Is Dr. Woods really so naive as to think that the fan is only pointed towards the leftists when the proverbial dung hits it? I don't think so. As Rome begins the purging process, the persecution of faithful Catholics will not be a small thing - far worse than they are now, as hard as that is to believe. The puny concessions the left has allowed for Traditionalists, for instance, would be wiped out overnight. How about this, Dr. Woods. Think of those Traditionalists who have recourse to one Church in a whole diocese for the Traditional Mass. Now, picture this: those Traditionalists going to a Novus Ordo Mass because your lefty bishop wants to play hardball and refuses to allow the Latin mass any longer. Chilling sight, isn't it?
#5 - What is the Church's mission? It is to evangelize the world. In our day, that includes not only evangelizing non-Catholics but even those Catholics within the Church. If the Vatican's focus was on playing powerball with every recalcitrant bishop in this world, we'd have to hire even more Vatican bureaucrats to deal with the Diocesan bureaucrats. Now, why would we want to do that? I know Chris Ferrara wouldn't be too impressed with even more Vatican "functionaries". There is no point in wasting time, money and talent in policing and enforcing conformity with the truth, and all of the stonewalling, yelping, and back stabbing that goes with it. We cannot force people to accept the truth. In the end, they'll do what they want, in any case. The best approach - the approach in the Pope's view - is to go right for the jugular and change what people want. This is the most effective and efficient approach to the dilemma in the long run. Besides, the Pope wants less government. Dr. Woods obviously wants a much bigger one. Hey, Tom! Have you considered running for the Democrats?
This bit of special pleading won’t work. For one thing, Archbishop Carroll was the Rock of Gibraltar compared to the typical run of bishops today. More importantly, though, Archbishop Carroll was widely known for his liberalizing views. Cardinal O’Connor, on the other hand, was considered one of the most conservative prelates in America. That is the point. Even the best of our bishops are terrified of teaching Catholic doctrine, and some of them flatly deny it. On this point in particular, I’d love to see a list of just five American bishops who would say publicly that the Jews have just as great an obligation to convert to Christ as any other men. How are the Canadian bishops on this issue, Mr. Pacheco? Full of zeal for souls?
Pacheco concludes this section by reminding us, “There will be good bishops; there will be bad ones, and there will be horrible ones. Learn it, accept it, live with it. That’s part of the cross.” Mr. Pacheco, do you really not see the difference between the present situation and the case of Archbishop Carroll, the difference between the rule and the exception? Really? Do you believe eighteenth-century Catholics cringed as they awaited the appointment of a new bishop as we all do today?
Dr. Woods asked for "just five American bishops" who could maintain some orthodoxy. So what is he saying? That we should depose the other 295 who didn't make the grade? Is that what you are asking Rome to do, Dr. Woods? Please tell us. Perhaps then he can tell us how he can reconcile the Church's teaching on marriage with her relationship with her Bishops. Just as a husband and father is unwilling to separate his children from his wife except for the most grievous circumstances, so too the Church is unwilling to take action against her Bishops for the same reason. Who determines what is "grievous"? Our superiors do. Not some guy who has his finger on the "reformation trigger" 24-hours a day.
And while we are discussing "the difference between the rule and the exception", let's back up and answer the question. Mr. Matatics said that Carroll "sold us down the river". The question I put to you is why the Pope did not reprimand him EVEN if he was the exception. Indeed, is it not much easier to reprimand one or two bad bishops in a time of strength than it is to reprimand 295 of them in a time of virtual apostasy? I think so. Please, Dr. Woods. I know you like Lawrence's champagne music and dance and all, but won't you sit down for a moment and answer the question? Why was Carroll not reprimanded or removed?
No one denies that there have been bad bishops over the course of Church history. Yet would any of us, were we living during St. Pius X’s pontificate, have to struggle with bishops who approved sex education in Catholic schools? Would we have to beg them not to profane the sacred liturgy? Would we feel that they and we lived in two different ideological worlds, as any Catholic in his right mind feels vis-à-vis the present crop of bishops?
It cannot be emphasized enough: the present slate of bishops – virtually the entire lot of them – would have been considered appalling and reprehensible just two generations ago. Short of the Arian crisis, Mr. Pacheco – and I shudder to think of the excuses you would have concocted then – when else in Church history have the faithful been surrounded by such overwhelming apostasy? This claim of yours that we’re simply dealing with a few bad bishops, and that we’d better stop demanding perfection because such expectations are in vain in this world – do you yourself believe it? If so, can you show me some evidence – something, anything – that the preconciliar period was in any way comparable to the present catastrophe?
For instance, did there have to be something like Roman Catholic Faithful, the heroic organization run by Stephen Brady, a layman from Illinois, which monitors unspeakable wrongdoing among bishops and priests in the face of inaction and silence from Church authorities? Were Catholics fighting with their bishops over school curricula that attacked the Faith? Were the bishops encouraging hula Masses in Hawaii, as even the Vatican now permits? Short of bringing out the golden calf and asking us to worship it, what exactly would the present crop of bishops have to do in order to persuade you that we are dealing with a situation qualitatively far worse than simply a few bad bishops here and there?
I do not dispute any of this. My point is that the Church's general approach (there are always exceptions) is not to depose bishops for failure to guard the faith.
And as for the Arian crisis, perhaps Dr. Woods can share with us how many bishops the Pope deposed. This should be good.
Dr. Woods and I share the same opinion on the state of the Church. There is no dispute here. It seems, however, that he thinks that by simply going on about the sad state of the Church the way he does, it will make his case for direct Roman intervention more cogent. Yet, what does Dr. Woods really have to offer? Is he so naive to think that he can make some kind of legislative announcement to force bishops to do their job? And how is that to be monitored and enforced without making a bishop the altar boy of the Pope? Dr. Woods likes stomping around and waving his hands a lot, but he needs to show us all of the grand maneuvers he can employ to get the job done. Of course, he can draw on all of his qualifications and vast experience in Vatican politics to return us all to Camelot. But wait. Before Lawrence strums up the band again, and you all go along with this dance, perhaps Dr. Woods can present his resume for this new position of "Grand Inquisitor". Does Dr. Woods have any higher formal theological training? Has he ever worked at the Vatican in any meaningful capacity? Has he even visited the Vatican outside a Remnant pilgrimage? Does he have any Episcopal experience in dealing with Episcopal issues? Does he have any grasp whatsoever of the nature of the relationship between the bishops and the Pope? Does he have any political background - even in the secular world? Does he have even a cursory knowledge or understanding of how much the Vatican can push the local ordinary around and how much it cannot? What would he do when whole National Conferences refuse to act on his proposals? Will he axe the lot of them? What experience does he have in managing a one billion member church with over 2,500 dioceses world wide? Yet despite all of these unanswered, and likely nil responses, we are supposed to consult him and The Remnant for advice on how to clean things up? Hey, Tom, even Lawrence knows a farcical act when he sees one.
In my original challenge I also cited the words of Walter Cardinal Kasper, who heads two pontifical commissions, for the Promotion of Christian Unity and for Religious Relations with the Jews. “[T]he old theory of substitution is gone since the Second Vatican Council,” the Cardinal said. “For us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality…. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises” (emphasis added).
One could cite a great many other such comments by His Eminence, but Pacheco is at the ready with his perfectly reasonable explanation. “Behind the veil of the Old Covenant,” he writes, “lies the face of Jesus Christ Himself, the author and end of this Covenant (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14). To be truly faithful to the Old Covenant requires its authentic fulfillment which is found, objectively, in the New Covenant.”
Once again we see the neo-Catholic excuse factory at work, ever at the ready to inform us of what some Vatican prelate “really means”: when men like Cardinal Kasper say that the Old Covenant has never been revoked and is salvific for the Jews, what he really means is that the Jews must be converted to Christ, since the Old Covenant has its fulfillment in the New. It would be nice if we could have a quotation from Cardinal Kasper indicating that this is in fact what he meant, rather than yet another contrived neo-Catholic rationalization. In other words, if he really means it, why doesn’t he ever really say it?
To be fair to the Cardinal, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms at least part of what the Cardinal said above:
The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 121)
Is Dr. Woods so sure that there is not some theological nuance to the Cardinal's comments? Or perhaps he would like to call a spade a spade and label the Catechism heretical? Come on then, Dr. Woods, OUT WITH your "Catholicism-in-a-box" theology.
Finally, let’s consider my challenge involving Roger Cardinal Mahony. Here’s what I wrote:
Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles – the largest archdiocese in the United States – is a scandal in himself. His “vocations” office weeds out potentially sane candidates by asking their position on the ordination of women and making their decision on that basis. (Hint: they’re in favor.) He is almost immeasurably more sympathetic to homosexual Catholics than he is to those who want to attend the traditional Mass. He spent nearly $200 million on a “cathedral” that constitutes an outright assault on the Catholic faith, and he has all but repudiated transubstantiation in a pastoral letter on the liturgy. He is deeply implicated in covering up for and promoting sexual deviants and criminals.
Why is such a man not rebuked in any way – and, to the contrary, greeted with a warm letter of papal esteem on the occasion of the opening of his alleged cathedral (also praised by the Pope)? Before answering that “collegiality” and ecclesiastical decentralization must be observed, be prepared to explain why the mere procedural norm of collegiality is more important than the countless souls who will almost certainly be lost as a direct result of Cardinal Mahony’s tenure.
Before reading Pacheco’s reply, it might be helpful to recall one of the key tenets of neo-Catholicism, which I have formulated as follows:
Vatican inaction against dissenters, whether in the religious orders, among diocesan bishops, or within the curia itself, is always the result of a brilliant, carefully crafted plan executed with the good of souls in mind, and never an indication of weakness or laxity.
Pacheco’s answer is long, yet I think it is well worth quoting at length:
Under the American system of government, politicians who win presidential nominations in their respective parties are basically playing a “winner take all” game. That is to say, there is usually no room for the loser in the administration of the winner. The winner chooses his administrative team, and the loser goes home or back to his old job as senator or governor. Under the British parliamentary system, however, the political realities are completely different. When the winner of the party’s nomination wins the election, he usually bends over backwards to give the loser a very influential post in his cabinet – sometimes excessively so. This is done in order to maintain a sense of unity in the party and to heal wounds caused during the nomination campaign. If the Prime Minister were to cut off his chief rival from his appointed post in the government, then this act could have long-lasting and tragic consequences for the party and its future success in getting elected.
Now how is this applicable to this situation with Mahony? Well, while it is true that the Church is not a political organization, there are obviously certain political elements that always come into play in the affairs of men. The Pope’s main concern, above all else, is the salvation of souls. Now, how is this to be accomplished? One way is to cut off Mahony and the whole putrefying, stinking lot. This is one way.
This, Pacheco tells us, is “the way of the world: ‘bruise me and I'll kick the living [daylights] out of you.’ This is the approach that some ‘loyal’ Catholics would prefer.” (He means us: notice the quotation marks around the word loyal. If we were truly loyal to the Church, apparently, we wouldn’t want to see the Church’s enemies removed from their offices. Try to make sense of that.)
“But this is not the way of Jesus Christ,” Pacheco tells us. “It is not the way of mercy. And when we are before the judgment throne of God, only the very stupid and arrogant will choose to approach the Son of God demanding justice instead of begging for mercy. This is what the Pope is trying to tell humanity today: we need more mercy and not less. Because, as Catholics, we believe the Church is divine and that God works through the Church sacramentally and directly, those within Her Sacred bosom are infinitely better prepared to receive the graces of repentance than if they were deposed and banished from Her presence.” He goes on:
The Holy Father is using his office to evangelize these poor and miserable wretches from within the Church. And He has a much better chance of success if they remain within the Church than if they leave her or if they are forced out. In fact, John Paul II is engaging our culture and the Church the way that Our Lord did: not through thuggery but through respect, patience, and mercy. And not just any kind of mercy, but a supernatural kind. (Let’s face it. Natural mercy would hardly cut it in the case of some bishops.) Thuggery might have worked in the middle ages (and then not really since that is a myth), but it works even less with modern man. And modern man, like it or not, is the object of our evangelization efforts. [Emphasis in original.] He expects respect for his views, and in order to win his allegiance to the gospel, legislative imperialism (like war) is the last resort to be employed. In many cases, it signals defeat for the one who must employ it. And, in my opinion, the Church should never admit defeat. The intellectual and salvific stakes are much too high. It is a marriage of sorts. Faithful Catholics are not the only ones suffering. The dissenters are not having a great time either. They are fighting against God’s church and will always end in defeat, and what is worse, they will always be identified with the Pope as their spiritual leader. For them, that must be a living hell and prison. That is why, in a sense, we don't want to let the “little bird” out of the cage. Inside the Church, they are still going to be confronted with the fact that the official teaching of the Church is everything they are against.
So where has the Pope placed his bets? On the fact that there are probably very few dim-witted people in the Church to be fooled by prelates like Mahony. Keep the stinking puss in the Church, pray that the salt of the earth does its job by rubbing out the cancerous growth and thereby save the limb.
Let’s sort this out. We have to give the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to a man like Cardinal Mahony lest we lose him and his lot? (That position takes for granted the debatable proposition that His Eminence is presently in the Church to begin with.) I find it impossible to believe that anyone could accept such a non-explanation. What about all the souls that will be lost because of him? Where do they fit into this calculus? Where is the mercy toward them? Isn’t that the kind of mercy Christ had in mind, rather than coddling those whose scandal to these little ones has merited them a well-deserved millstone? How could the possibility of driving Cardinal Mahony and his ilk out of the Church outweigh the fates of the millions of children who, as a result of his influence, have been given an insipid substitute for the Catholic faith?
For the same reason, I suppose, that Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, chose weak and feeble minded men to lead his Church, all of whom - save one - would abandon him in His darkest hour on the cross. The leader of this band publicly denied him. Another demanded the crudest evidence of his Resurrection. And still another betrayed him completely, then went away and hung himself. What kind of "witness" and "influence" is that on the early Christian community? Pretty disasterous, if you ask me. But wait, here's Captain Woods ready to save the day. Peter and John can stay, but Thomas and the rest of you bums, you're outta here! We need new recruits!
For all of his faults, poor ol' Roger's Cathedral doesn't look so bad after all.
Dr. Woods also asks: "What about all the souls that will be lost because of him? Where do they fit into this calculus?" Where? In the same place that the first century Jews found themselves in with a corrupt Sanhedrin. And what was Jesus' response? Revolution? Hardly.
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (Matthew 23:2)
Dr. Woods, please explain why Jesus did not overthrow the corrupt leaders of His day? Please explain why He accepted the outrageous calumny and disgrace of being sentenced to death by a wicked and perverse Sanhedrin?
Pacheco also argues that there can’t be very many people in the Church so “dim-witted” as to be “fooled by prelates like Mahony.” John Pacheco and I live, apparently, in different worlds. In my world, a majority of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; the vast majority ignore the Church’s teaching on contraception; the Sacrament of Penance, offered from 4:30 until 5:00 on Saturday afternoons, is entirely neglected; and multitudes, not knowing any better, routinely cheer a degree of profanation of the sacred liturgy that would have brought tears to the eyes of any saint. In Pacheco’s world, on the other hand, hardly any Catholic could be fooled by Cardinal Mahony. I sure wish I could live in that world.
Mahony has not repudiated any Catholic dogma. What you need to better understand, Dr. Woods, is that the office of Bishop you are constructing for yourself is not Catholic. The Bishop is not some altar boy of the Vatican, but a Successor in his own right. That means that the bar has to be set enormously high in order for their to be recourse to removing him from his See. Frankly, the above neglected situations really don't cut it. And before you get all hot and bothered by that last comment, Dr. Woods, consider what it would take to remove your own brother from the head of his household. If he begins to drink too much, is that a good enough reason for you? What about failing to spend enough leisure time with his children? How about that? How about his neglect in taking an interest in his children's education? Does that deserve the yank? Not easy situations, but who would go so far as removing him from his place for these infractions or neglected duties?
Removing a bishop from his office is nothing short of a divorce, and it is the last resort the Pope can appeal to for the most serious of situations. The decision to remove a bishop is not based on the whims of the faithful or any civil society. The faithful cannot depose a bishop. But that, in the end, is what you are really after, isn't it Dr. Woods? You want your remarks to have an impact on some "Vatican functionary" so you can feel better that you've deposed some lame bishop. That's what Leo XIII called "Americanism".
So while we’re being patient with the Mahonys of the world, we’re apparently supposed to place all our hopes in the “conservatives” the Vatican occasionally throws our way: people like Edward Cardinal Egan and Francis Cardinal George. St. Robert Bellarmine, these men aren’t. Every one of them would have been considered a disgrace 40 years ago; today they’re champions of orthodoxy who will lead us out of these terrible straits. Right.
And the obvious alternative to such "disgraceful" prelates - the best we have, by the way - is to do what? Time warp the champions of orthodoxy in from another era? Righto. Dr. Woods and I do live in different worlds. He likes to beam in and out of this one quite frequently.
Moreover, if Pacheco has accurately described the Pope’s strategy for dealing with the worst of the bishops (and of course Pacheco is simply making up this explanation, having no way of knowing what the Pope is thinking on the matter), then why did John Paul refuse the first resignation letter of Rembert Weakland, the extreme leftist former Archbishop of Milwaukee? Archbishop Weakland submitted the required letter of resignation when he turned 75, and the Pope refused to accept it. (Abp. Weakland’s resignation was eventually accepted only after he had fallen into scandal.) Why not? If Pacheco is right, the Pope should have been thrilled to accept it – one more leftist removed, and without the need for disciplinary intervention.
This is the kind of puerile presumption that neo-traditionalists suffer from. They lack faith and trust in the Pontiff and the Church. They think he is some kind of incompetent old fool who doesn't know what he's doing. And they, they alone, are the Church's saviour. Here's a couple of alternatives Dr. Woods should consider. First, the Pope did not accept Weakland's resignation because it was in the middle of the National Sex Show. Without prejudice, Dr. Woods, if I were Pope I would not move any of the Bishops either. Why the heck would I want to accept resignations from the guys that were responsible for this thing RIGHT before the light begins to shine on them? Second, the Pope is protecting the sovereignty of the Church from Ecclesiastical Donatists like Dr. Woods. The Church is hierarchical and sovereign. It retains the right to make its own Episcopal decisions without being seen as caving into socio-political pressures. The Church is not a democracy.
That in his heart of hearts Pacheco can’t really mean any of this nonsense becomes clear when we perform a little thought experiment. Suppose the Pope should announce tomorrow that he is removing Cardinal Mahony as Archbishop of Los Angeles. The rejoicing among beleaguered and demoralized American Catholics would be positively deafening. In the midst of all this joy, this sense that perhaps now something was finally beginning to happen, would Pacheco really stand up and insist that the Pope had done the wrong thing by removing the Cardinal, and that the best strategy had been simply to leave him in his position? I have enough confidence in the good sense of Mr. Pacheco to give him the benefit of the doubt here: surely he would rejoice with us and forget all about this sorry excuse for inaction that he invented in order to exculpate the Vatican.
Yes, I would be very happy to see Mahony go, but the difference between Dr. Woods and I is that I have enough faith in Rome to do what Rome has been doing for the last 2,000 years: govern Christ's Church. The Pope has all of the information about Mahony at his finger tips. He knows what's going on. He also knows the negative impact of taking drastic measures both now and in the long term to the flock and to the Church's governance and unity. He weighs all of this and makes a decision with the help of the Holy Spirit. I defer to that decision. After all, isn't this the man who played an instrumental role in the collapse of the Soviet bloc without nearly a drop of blood being spilled? Dr. Woods, on the other hand, just keeps beaming in and out of this world, just long enough to offer his monthly rant in a magazine which was founded in the sexual revolution and doesn't even have a proper domain name on the web? Ya. You go there, Tom!
John Pacheco is a man of good will; of that I am not in doubt. That is why it is so unsettling to see him manufacturing a ceaseless supply of excuses and contrived explanations for behavior that can have no excuse. More people than ever are refusing to defend the indefensible any longer. There is absolutely no excuse for the state of the Church today, and deep down Pacheco knows it.
There has been "no excuse" for the state of the Church in many eras of the Church. It's mind boggling that a professor of history should make such an immature and shallow observation. As if to suggest that legislative and administrative revolution would solve all of the problems. Yeah, that's historical alright. Where did you say you taught again?
Each of the high-profile people who have moved to traditionalism over the past few years has his own story to tell, his own particular breaking point. I do not know what yours will be, Mr. Pacheco. But when it comes, be assured that we will let bygones be bygones, and welcome you with open arms.
How many "high-profile" people is that? One guy in 1993 and one in 2002. Some revolution that is.
To Mr. Pacheco, then, I say in all sincerity: your other writings indicate that you are a knowledgeable and talented man. Those who, knowing full well what they are doing, continue to dismantle the remnants of traditional Catholicism before our very eyes, must take a perverse delight in the elaborate defenses you contrive on their behalf. The next time you are tempted to construct yet another such defense, stop and remember: the explanation you are inventing probably never occurred to the people to whom you ascribe it. Stop giving them the satisfaction. Stop defending the indefensible. If not now, then at some point in the future something will happen that you will simply not be willing to defend.
And what you need to do, Dr. Woods, is stop accepting scandal and acting like a cry baby because you got a sliver in your finger. The Catholic Church is not corporate America so stop advocating that she treat her bishops like some sucker in a three piece suit corporate executive. You need to read up on the heresy of Americanism and what it really means to obey. Why don't you try some of that good ol' fashion pre-V2 obedience? The kind that would have gotten your wrists slapped several times over for the kind of scandal you are causing Christ's faithful. You need to pick up that cross, get your nose a little dirty, and walk the Via Delarosa. Come down from that throne of yours and take off the crown. Join the rest of us in suffering Our Lord's passion, and quit telling Jesus to come down off the cross:
"He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him." (Matthew 27:42)
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
July 23, 2003