Essay
Bishops and Bishop-Bashers
In 1981, a noted French theologian made a series of trenchant observations on the need for his country's bishops to safeguard the doctrines of the faith. Today, years after it was written, readers will notice that his analysis could apply with equal force to the challenges that confront the Church in other countries today.
Rev. Paul Toinet
It seems to me to be better to accept appearing to be disagreeable and even disrespectful. For silence in itself gives no clue to where on actually stands.
Who is going to reaffirm authentic Catholic doctrine if the bishops do not?
Rarely do we find in official statements any indications, even hints, that our bishops are aware that the present crisis of the Church... is fundamentally a crisis on the level of doctrine.
In practice, it is to those who (with or without formal theological justification) insist on the gravity of this situation, that the bishops tend to attribute the polemical excesses.
Since our bishops rightly profess that their mission is one of discernment, how does it happen that it seems so difficult for them to discern what is discerned easily enough by so many of the simple faithful?
The majority of French bishops are fearful lest even the mere listing of ten errors or dangerous tendencies in the Roman letter might give the wrong idea of a coordinated effort.
They were quite unsuitable for explaining the Council since they ignored it themselves.
It is also becoming more and more difficult to keep on ignoring those who, for years, did not cease to repeat that it would finally become necessary to make realistic assessments and evaluations regarding the current state of affairs in the Church.
Anyone who accepts the need for these things, will indeed end up by catching a glimpse of a possible solution.
It is certainly a matter of great delicacy for a French priest to have to raise a number of considerations regarding the present state of the Church in France, including some judgments about which one must say that they are hardly the type to please a segment of the bishops of his country, let alone to promote the authority of the episcopal conference to which these bishops belong. My sole reason for seeming to add to the present difficulty of the bishops' task is the existence within the Church in France of a serious disorder.
I say this with all due respect and making the proper distinctions. It would not have been difficult to dissuade me from writing this; I would have preferred not even to appear to add to the present difficulties. However, it seems to me that the connection between the functioning of authority and our present crisis must be not merely affirmed, but explained. Under certain situations, it could even result in something becoming rather evident: namely, the need for a decided, more determined, more critical, and more enlightened exercise of an authority that can also be liberating.
What is at issue is, therefore, not in any way the rights and responsibilities of the bishops to carry out in every way possible the mission of governing confided to them by God; it is rather the existence of a certain number of obstacles, uncertainties, and reticences along with the inability to read the signals properly. These things in turn give rise to an unhealthy ecclesial situation which weighs heavily upon both the shepherds and the faithful. Among the faithful, there are those for whom such things do not sit well, and this contributes to the paralysis of the bishops in the exercise of their ministry. There are others for whom this relative paralysis of the bishops provokes wither a kind of revolt, or at least troubled conscience.
Although this causes serious embarrassment, it nevertheless becomes necessary to speak and to act according to the demands of Christian responsibility; but in doing this, given the current situation, one runs the risk of being considered a shrill and dissenting voice raised in opposition to a "policy" that is necessarily being followed because of episcopal powerlessness. To give in to such a sense of embarrassment and hesitation out of fear of becoming oneself a source of embarrassment is to enter, passively but perhaps still culpably, into the same state of affairs whose disastrous character and influence one so rightly deplores. It is to resign oneself to living in a closed society, convincing oneself that it is useless to attempt to apply any other remedy other than prayer and fasting to the present state of affairs.
However, because of the esteem accorded not only to the office of bishops. but to the very person of those who consent to assume the episcopal function in these particularly difficult times, it seems to me to be better to accept appearing to be disagreeable and even disrespectful. For silence in itself gives no clue to where on actually stands. Silence can be ambiguous; according to the case, it can signify indifference, blindness, complicity, weakness, vested interest. It can even signify modesty and genuine humility, not to mention resignation born of defeat, or even a kind of self-oblation taking its cue from the example of the Crucified. But it would be surprising that for a malady about which everyone is more or less aware there could be no other recourse except to practice one of the forms of silence, or, on the other hand, to resort to angry protestations, which, for some, become practically a need or obsession, and a very exasperating one at that.
An uncomfortable situation
The French bishops were probably the first to experience their present situation as being an uncomfortable, no-win, and utterly thankless job. Burdened by responsibilities of various types which they fulfill most often with good will, according to their talents and resources; called upon and even compelled to act as mediators between opposing factions, they frequently find themselves reaching this difficult conclusion: They satisfy no one. They are objects of reproach from the right and from the left. There is no common denominator for the extreme demands which come to them from all sides. Only dissatisfaction seemed to be universal.
Currently, though, it is a question of dissatisfactions in the plural, whose causes and arguments reveal basic conflicts among the people; pastors that they are, they are easily tempted to believe that genuine sincerity and real suffering will never be totally without merit in the final analysis. Thus, given the clamor of ideas, and faced with so many attitudes considered by them to be simply intolerant, the bishops have a concern which we can well understand: to try to remain above partisan squabbles. In order to be facilitators, they want to allow for a certain amount of leeway for legitimate pluralism (or what is presumed to be such), while they go on reminding everyone of the Gospel demands of unity and charity. Gladly do they exhort each other to patience and to courage in the fact of the trials experienced in the exercise of their ministry of discernment and unity in troubled times; they do rightly strive to have a good sense of humor, a most difficult art.
At the 1977 meeting of the French bishops conference in Lourdes, the conference president Cardinal Roger Etchegaray said:
We are called to exercise at the very center of our distinct, personal, and inalienable ministry, a ministry of spiritual discernment, and evangelical clarity of vision. It is a service which leaves us much more breathless when certain people pursue us relentlessly and without pity and often unjustly, discrediting us instead of assisting us. We need a great deal of humor in the face of the contradictory reproaches which are made against us: our silences amount to weakness or to complicity; our mediations are considered as deriving from fear or exasperation. We need a great deal of clarity to remain level-headed while at the same time endeavoring to e understanding toward people. We need a great deal of interior freedom, so that we do not allow ourselves to be intimidated by any group or opinion poll and so that we remain fully accountable for our own decisions. We need a great deal of courage to affirm that we are responsible--even to the point of becoming a target for arrows from all directions. Oh, for the good old days when the pastor dared to speak openly and clearly, boldly and bluntly to a people capable of receiving the force of a biting word without ambiguity.
The more the Church, like society, seems to be coming apart in her relations and in her language, the more important it is for her to safeguard her identity at all costs. The identity crisis is disconcerting, indeed, downright intolerable. It explains the sometimes desperate cries of the faithful of all points of view who are searching, as if it were a question of sheer survival, to safeguard the two fundamental rights of the Christian: belief in the Creed and reception of the Eucharist, two realities so closely related that, in antiquity, their names were interchangeable.
One who speaks to his colleagues in this particular manner undoubtedly gains a great deal of support and approval from them. The sentiments Cardinal Etchegaray sets forth here, the judgments that he brings to bear on the present state of affairs and upon the present pastoral responsibilities of the French bishops, are very probably shared by most of his colleagues. Nevertheless, it is very important to realize that what is expressed in this way only corresponds to one part of what the bishops are thinking: It corresponds to what they are able to recognize and comment upon as a group, faced with the division in Catholic thought, in the hope of rendering contagious their desire for peace and Christian honesty, while, at the same time, they seek to escape being characterized as advocates or supporters of one or another of the competing positions presently operative within the Church.
But when they express themselves individually and privately, without having to fear that they themselves will be misjudged, about the present crises and about those they consider to be the fomenters of discord, their judgments are far from exhibiting the same measure of reserve or standing on the same common ground which is only possible when no particular judgment is being set forth.
How the bishops betray their impressions, the orientation of their own thought, or even their severe judgments can be gleaned from certain of their number, in the way that they subscribe to a particular current of theology, or confide the "recycling" of the priests of their jurisdiction (and thus, in many cases, their own diocesan clergy) to a particular group of specialists. They reveal themselves as well in some of the material of the various "central offices" from which there emanate all the slogans and jargon which openly or secretly influence liturgical or catechetical activity on the local level, and which are diffused in every conceivable way.
A significant number of bishops, using this "central office" material, express their dissatisfaction with the manner in which the annual bishops' meetings at Lourdes function. This is especially the case with regard to the orientations and to the content of the draft documents, regarding which the bishops have little knowledge about how and by whom they were prepared, as well as about which particular philosophical or theological presuppositions might have served as the basis for the preparation in committee. Thus it often becomes necessary for a given bishop to decide to "pass up" the opportunity of making criticisms or of offering particular important and worthwhile clarifications. On all of these points, it is usually easy to elicit private opinions from the bishops; but then these very same bishops insist that their opinions remain private.
The "French curial system"
Official documents are very reticent, of course, about the opinions of several bishops on the reasons for their dissatisfaction, their uneasiness and sometimes even their indignation. Confidential documents attesting to their opinions can only be cited with caution and by way of example (and anonymously, though with the consent of their authors). Thus one critical bishop has said:
For ten years straight, attempts have been made to alter terminological expressions which ultimately touched upon a number of important areas and which seriously undermined authority (under the pretext of providing services). All this was to the advantage of certain powerful but untouchable parallel authorities working behind the scenes. I cannot sufficiently denounce the harm being done to the Church in France by the various committees, departments, and national centers operating out of Paris, which totally dominate French pastoral practice. The staffs of these national centers live together, plan together, and their planning is sometimes utterly irresponsible; sometimes, too, their planning is the product of reflecting in a complete vacuum. They are also easily co-opted. Moreover, there are many offices, periodicals, journals, meetings, travel for speaking engagements to be found at their disposal. And during all the time when the bishops are back in their own dioceses, they either don't know how, or dare not, stand up to these clever parallel new Church authorities. Even at Lourdes, many bishops dare not speak up, since they realize that there are journalists of every persuasion present all around them as well as staff representatives from all the national centers in paris. The latter are only too ready to "nitpick" their statements and misrepresent them, and, in the process, give them a bad reputation.
Dissatisfaction with the French "curial system" is not an isolated instance among the bishops. There should have been more space to reflect even further upon the functioning of this particular type of "national curia," which, not being at the service of any bishops, in particular, cannot fail but become a dangerously autonomous power bloc. It would be unfair, however, to give the impression that, on their side alone, we can discover the source of every problem. The national departments and centers do include men of dedication and remarkable good will. The problem stems, above all, from the contemporary crisis of thought and from the ideological damage continually being done today to the understanding of Christian faith and practice.
To appreciate the relevance of this observation as applied to the current situation in the United States, the remarks of Rosemary Radford Reuther are particularly revealing:
A new consensus could only come about if this traditional power could be deposed and the Church restructured on conciliar, democratic lines accountable to the people. Then the theological consensus of the academy could serve as a guide for the pastoral teaching of the Church. This is really what Küng is calling for: that the academy replace the hierarchy as the teaching magisterium of the Church. This cannot be accomplished by the academy itself. It entails the equivalent of the French Revolution in the Church, the deposing of a monarchical for a democratic constitution of the Church....
In the immediate future we cannot hope for a new consensus that will overcome this theological split between the academy and the hierarchy. Rather, the best we can hope for is the defense of pluralism.... Pluralism can be defended only by making sure that this hierarchical power structure is not strong enough to repress successfully the independent institutional bases of conciliar and liberation theology.
Passed over in silence
If, on the inside, bishop are expressing serious reservations regarding the possibility of fulfilling their office without hindrance, they should not be surprised to encounter, on the outside, priests and informed lay people who express the same doubts. The latter have been witnesses of a good number of scandals of various types; they have heard plenty of things which the bishops, given their positions, perforce would not have heard but which confirm many of the basic fears and concerns which they themselves have expressed privately.
Bishops understandably regret that complaints are often made to them rather bluntly, like indictments addressed directly to them--or, at any rate, they are made in such a way that the bishops cannot derive much support and help from those making them. The bishops suffer from what people heap upon them--people from whom they normally would have expected a little bit of friendship and good will, and, especially, a conscientious interpretation of all their statements and an understanding of the manner in which they try to exercise their pastoral office in a time of uncertainty.
Actually, no one who professes the Catholic faith and accepts its radical demand for love and gratitude can remain insensitive to the unfortunate tragedy of the situation of the bishops during a period of fierce debate over the role of any and all authority. No one should want to withhold friendship or should withhold a sense of fair play, born of a truly filial concern, from those who have so frequently had to swallow the bitter pill of being a father who is rejected and humiliated. The problem nevertheless remains of knowing what means one must use when the questions being debated are really in a large measure doctrinal in nature, and yet the situation is such that it becomes very tempting to act as if there were no doctrinal problems at all. Who is going to reaffirm authentic Catholic doctrine if the bishops do not?
If the analyses set forth in this study are not too inaccurate, if there is nothing against them except their novelty, the greatest fear remains that the type of danger which they are pointing out might not be taken seriously enough by the bishops. The bishops must realize this when they try to investigate and pronounce upon the origin and nature of the conflicts and problems for which they hope to be able to produce a remedy. Yet reticence appears to be particularly prevalent among them (sometimes only according to differences in personality, but also certainly, in their public and group statements) whenever it happens to be a matter of dealing face to face with particular evils, or summoning up the courage to say quite openly. "No," to the various groups of intellectuals and activists who are, at one and the same time, the perpetrators, victims, and dupes of the evils we suffer. These intellectuals and activists are adept at intimidating episcopal opinion, while meanwhile passing themselves off as having a more enlightened understanding of the Church in France in the areas of theology, ecumenism, exegesis, science, and the like. As a result of this state of affairs, both heterodoxy and practices destructive of the very foundations of the Church are able to flourish. And more often than not the basis of it all is a rather discreetly concealed form of "anti-Romanism."
Rarely do we find in official statements any indications, even hints, that our bishops are aware that the present crisis of the Church, especially in the local dioceses--that is to say in the spheres of the bishops' own responsibility--is fundamentally a crisis on the level of doctrine. Regardless of the explanations given out, the crisis amounts to a crisis of belief. Many matters, though, are expressed and treated as if they were merely conflicts, for which a negotiated solution were being sought, stemming either from general causes affected by the general breakdown in our society (causes which certainly cannot be denied) or from a missionary zeal which has fallen victim to its own fanatical intensity, or even from a tendency on the part of Catholics on different ends of the spectrum to "shut one another out." Many matters are treated as if it were necessary, at all costs, to avoid letting it appear that there could even be a suspicion that any who teach and administer, by virtue of an official commission, perhaps no longer do so in accordance with authentic Catholic faith and practice. There seems to exist even strong reasons for not saying anything which might seem to credit the hypothesis of generalized heresy in certain circles which "shape opinion," both on the theological or pastoral levels. In practice, it is to those who (with or without formal theological justification) insist on the gravity of this situation that the bishops tend to attribute the polemical excesses, or, at any rate, they single them out as examples that should not be heeded or followed if the hoped for restoration of order in the Church is to be achieved.
The appeal to unity
However, if by any chance the position of the protesters (however well or poorly formulated) corresponds to a reality, it would be certainly important for the bishops to recognize that certain important and even determining factors were lacking in the diagnosis which was frequently and officially made regarding the causes of the current sad state of affairs plaguing the Church in France during this postconciliar period. Thus we are told, in a statement approved by the French bishops in 1976:
Some groups, because they are too selective or homogeneous, stand at odds with one another, to the point of being unaware of the other's existence or of refusing to come to terms with each others activities, and they sometimes go as far as to mutually excommunicate each other. Appeals for dialogue, reconciliation, and unity... have, ala, been too little heeded by those who had the greatest need to do so. We must urgently do away with these long-standing family and tribal feuds, these suspicions and fratricidal denunciations taking place among people who are supposed to be conformed to the Gospel of Christ. As if any one of them exhausted the fullness of Christ! But, unfortunately, pilgrimage becomes crusade, witness becomes ideology, the apostolate, a political party or faction. So much misdirected activity, so much wasted energy!...
During all of the major turning points of her history, the Church has had to face a choice between being a Church of the elite or a Church of the masses, a Church of the "pure" or a Church of "men of little faith" a Church of the "already" or one of the "not yet." But the Church has never wished to decide in favor of one over the other. She appeals to the necessity to rise above the issues,to the reconciliation of opposites, as Christ did atop the Mount of Beatitudes. Today's Church must do everything possible to guarantee the bonds of solidarity between those who are "strong" and those who are "weak" in the faith, in order to provide "unlimited hospitality" and to create conditions which will be conducive to making the house of God habitable for all....
We have to achieve unity also among Catholics. Currently, condemnations are being too easily thrown around in the Church. Far too many priests are being discouraged by criticism which have no basis in fact. It is not a matter of seeking a uniformity which does not sufficiently respect differences. It is a matter of welcoming and living out this new fraternity which flows forth from the Cross of Christ in the very midst of our differences and even sometimes our open conflicts. It is a matter of allowing ourselves to be seized by the Holy Spirit, of Pentecost, who freeing us of all sectarianism, wishes to pour into our hearts this fraternal love which Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, extolled in the greatly divided community of Corinth. We urgently need to heed this appeal.
Will doctrinal debate be avoided?
Certainly this manner of speaking contains a great deal of truth. But there remains the fear that this way of treating the problem may obscure issues and questions of another order, which are more serious, and which reveal the urgency of recognizing a necessity for distinguishing between a sectarian rejection of true differences, and a required rejection of false differences.
A rejection that is required by fidelity to the truth of our faith does not necessarily apply to persons, nor to particular opinions acceptable in the Church. It applies to theses, positions, and practices which are incompatible with the faith and which can contribute to destroying faith in many souls. There is a need to meditate a great deal more upon New Testament texts where this is precisely the question. In no way is there any exemption accorded, during the present era, to the Church in France with respect to the evils of heresy and apostasy. can we seriously claim to be no longer prey to the conflicts of persons and tendencies, and to the varying forms of sectarianism which St. Paul reproached in the community at Corinth? Do not the Pauline epistles, and not just the pastoral epistles, attest to the permanent presence of similar evils in the Church?
Since our bishops rightly profess that their mission is one of discernment, how does it happen that it seems so difficult for them to discern what, in fact, is discerned easily enough by so many of the simple faithful, whose pastors and guides to recognizable truths they are supposed to be? The simple faithful often discern quite easily between intolerable situations which stem from narrowness and stupidity and others which proceed from a process of corruption of the faith. Significant numbers of Catholics, who know their Creed and the doctrinal implications flowing from it, are fully aware that there is a process of corruption of the faith going on today--a process of which they intend to be neither the accomplices nor the victims, neither for themselves nor for their children, if they happen to be parents, nor for the faithful of their parishes, if they happen to be priests.
Can the bishops possibly be correct in thinking that the identification and denunciation of evils of this sort can only surface among us as a result of ignorance, partisanship or fear? Nothing really authorizes such a conclusion--certainly not as long as they themselves have not deemed it necessary to supply a serious analysis of the causes of our problems in their official statements.
Our bishops propose no such analysis, and I believe that they don't make any such analysis. Yet, in private--and more rarely, even in public--some of them do affirm that in their view, and according to what is said to them in Rome, it is indeed accurate to speak of heresy and apostasy. However, they add that a number of their colleagues are a long way from reaching such a conclusion or else consider expressing themselves publicly in any such fashion to be highly inopportune. Why? They are silent out of fear of appearing to condemn persons (theologians or others) who are "engaging in research" and who are undoubtedly well intentioned, and otherwise committed to active Christian involvement. Condemnation would not fail to magnify the problem; indignant protests would be launched, either by the press or by small, determined coteries of supporters, charging the violation of Christian freedom. For those reasons, it is not possible in France to reach any common consensus regarding a diagnosis of the situation, one which would be accepted and diffused by the French episcopal conference and which would be followed by concrete actions aimed at remedying the situation.
Aren't all these considerations really behind the usual style, tone, and cautious content of the official texts coming form bishops' meetings at Lourdes? For various reasons, such documents always fall short of any doctrinal analysis (theological, philosophical, and even scientific) of data relative to the French situation which would make imperative any basic judgments. Any such judgments are sedulously avoided that would involve a change in pastoral direction or would run the risk of provoking the indignation of any particular segment of the priests or militant lay people, who positions, roles, and functions have now become a determining factor in the current orientation of the Church in France. We should not fail also to mention the possible indignation of a not negligible number of bishops and religious superiors who themselves are less reserved than others regarding the theses and innovative projects of the dissenters. And the latter, of course, are to be feared precisely because they incline toward open revolt faced with a loss of power and influence.
The Church adrift
Attempting a doctrinal clarification of all this appears to many bishops much more risky, and, consequently much more difficult to accept, especially in light of the supposed common position which the episcopate officially took a few years ago on the doctrinal situation in France. This position was expressed in a letter in which the episcopate responded to a document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, a document which ostensibly sought to alert the bishops, through episcopal conferences, to the impact on the Church of particular currents of thought, that admitted of serious doctrinal denials or misunderstandings. The French response was, at that time, highly deferential and carefully nuanced. Basically, however, it denied that there was any justification for speaking of a resurgence of modernism in this country. Thus it stated:
Certain modes of thought and action can lead to doctrinal error. But it is more often a question of tendencies, of currents of widespread dissatisfaction, of a certain fuzziness of thought. In these instances, we are not dealing with a coherent system. In short, when we view the situation as a whole, there is no justification for speaking of a resurgence of modernism, in the historical sense of the term.
The majority of French bishops are fearful lest even the mere listing of ten errors or dangerous tendencies in the Roman letter might give the wrong idea of a coordinated effort or might harden positions which are still flexible, or might even raise unwarranted doubts about matters which do not pose any difficulty. A fortiori, it is important to dispense with the hypothesis of a list of propositions to be condemned. Research would be paralyzed without, at the same time, stemming the tide of error...
In a country as traditionally Catholic as France, perhaps we have not sufficiently measured the requirements of a renewal in the personal framework and objective expression of the faith because of the daily necessity to mix in circles which are foreign to all forms of religious life. The finest lay apostles and even many priests have already raised this question concerning doctrine.
It is unlikely that the majority of French bishops would currently respond to the same questions from Rome in the same terms and with the same apparent assurance, since so many symptoms of our deep-seated and deadly crisis have been multiplied in the course of the last decade. But the very fact that those possessing the responsibility for doctrinal vigilance within France so recently expressed some reservations regarding Roman concerns and admonitions--viewing them no doubt, as somewhat inquisitorial, and thus unpopular and even offensive--is precisely what now makes difficult their recognizing the reality and gravity of the present crisis.
This is all the more true because those who were, at the time, considered to be "the best lay apostles" and the "best theologians" engaged in projects dealing with a "renewal in the personal framework and objective expression of the faith" have generally continued, in the majority of instances, to "develop," and to interpret things in their customary free-wheeling manner, which has not necessarily been that of the bishops. Since that time, how often has the inadequacy of the assessments they made immediately after the Council really been perceived? Instead even greater support has been given to their "theological," "pastoral," or "missionary" authority in the postconciliar projects of Catholicism in France, and often elsewhere besides. It is frequently because of these same people that certain official and semi-official positions have been adopted in France whose agreement with authentic conciliar positions and those specified by Rome has not been all that evident.
Sons of the Council?
It is not necessary that the documents expressing with more or less authority and emphasis the general thrust of French pastoral policy should distance themselves deliberately from the teaching of the Council and the numerous statements of the ordinary Roman Magisterium in order for doctrinal discrepancies to exist. There can be doctrinal discrepancies between them despite all sorts of neat cross references, allusions to and citations of different Church documents. For this to be the case, it is sufficient that the tone and style of the French documents be couched in such a way that they refer to indeterminate theological problems and avoid thereby having to confront those for whom these problems are precisely determined, both for them and for the groups to which they belong, and determined in ways which are hardly compatible with Catholic faith.
We see here the coalescence and combination of the ambiguities to which these kinds of documents give rise: Some proceed from an advanced state of Protestantization regarding how Christian faith is to be conceived; others proceed, consciously or subconsciously, from the specific demands of a pastoral practice which is surely "Gallican" in its thrust and which is usually coupled with a persistent allergy to everything recommended by the apostolic authority of Rome; still others derive not from a concrete consensus of all the bishops, but rather from what is considered to be the overall "tone and direction of the bishops meeting"--which they have to take into account even while practical necessity dictates that they not propose anything which could constitute a serious in-depth analysis of the meaning and implications of the doctrinal crisis in France.
Whatever the private opinions of a significant number of bishops about the doctrinal crisis in process may be, it seems evident to me that the documents elaborated over these last few years at Lourdes certainly do not call upon us to focus upon an crisis in doctrine, nor upon the theological and liturgical centers from which there has emanated a questionable theological-pastoral line of thought claiming to be open and post-conciliar. The same thing is true even in those cases in which the composition of French documents was intended to be doctrinal in their overall thrust.
What insistently had to be determined as a priority for the Church in France was the implementation of the Council: how it could be made to take hold in attitudes and activities, and also, what was the "missionary" options open to the Church. Directives on these subjects, by their very nature, needed to be acceptable to the greatest number of active Catholics concerned with carrying out the responsibilities proposed for all Christians by the Council, especially a they were more particularly applicable to the faithful in France. All would have been well if directives had been clear and without ambiguity, both in their explanations and in their proposed implementation of the conciliar directives and pastoral-missionary tasks indicated as priorities in France.
Is it an exaggeration to say that, on these points, French Catholics, and especially their priests, have been adversely affected by the lack of clarity, precision, and harmony? This lack doesn't mean that the episcopal directives were not drafted with the intention of engaging the Catholic community in a real program of renewal conforming to what the implementation of the council required, or one which deliberately disregarded priorities mentioned by so many as being the most important for our country. The incoherence or lack of clarity stemmed rather from the following: Neither those who were given the responsibility (or arrogated it to themselves) of presenting a doctrinal explanation of the council and of "echoing" its reforms, nor those who were considered (or considered themselves) as the representatives of the "apostolic and progressive missionary conscience" were suitable candidates for fulfilling what the episcopate expected of them. They were quite unsuitable for explaining the Council since they ignored it themselves. Or, at any rate, they were not the type likely to allow themselves to be instructed patiently and faithfully by the Church. Appealing to the famous dictum, "the Spirit of the Council," each one was inclined to impose his own personal program and his own dreams, all the while presuming that the initiatives which were allowed, under these circumstances, were, in fact, prompted by the Holy Spirit for this post-conciliar period. It seems, however, that the reality was and remains far different.
The historical trend
Between the two World Wars and even after the Second, many French Catholics, and the episcopate and priests primarily, were aware of the relative originality and very remarkable apostolic quality of our French Catholic Action movements and of our courageous attempts to come to terms with the evangelization of the most de-christianized sectors by means of "teams" comprised of priests and dedicated lay people (as well as religious). These "teams" followed the pattern and style of the Mission de France and the Worker Mission, which, in their particular orientations, were far from being identical. Many people were pleased by and even quite boastful of these French initiatives and by their evident success--exhibiting, in the process, attitudes of mind which were not without a certain Gallican self-satisfaction. It can also rightly be claimed that a majority were content to be involved because of their zeal for the Gospel; they were not preoccupied with drawing comparisons with what was being done outside of France in the name of Catholic Action or Mission. Something similar to this also occurred in the area of the benefits deriving from French theological research; oftentimes theology was related to the enterprise of evangelization ad intra.
However, toward the end of the pre-conciliar period, there were already a number of concerned informed Catholics who were being disturbed by a number of the ideological developments within Catholic Action. And it was not just a matter of noticeable gaps or lacks; there were a considerable number of serious doctrinal and disciplinary disorders occurring within specialized missionary circles. These concerned Catholics were of the opinion, even then, that unless these various problems were seriously addressed, along with some type of spiritual conversion, matters would eventually reach an impasse.
It was never realistic to presume that within the French theological arena, as also within the arena of Catholic Action and missionary activity, individuals and groups could be left alone to pursue their own particular fields of activity, in a single-minded fashion, in order to produce the most effective implementation of conciliar renewal. This would only be possible on one condition: that no attempt was made to look too closely at how things were actually going, or, in more than one case, at what provisions were really being made for carrying out the real intentions and directives of the Council. Failing serious evaluation and supervision in these decisive areas,the result was tantamount to rallying the whole French pastoral apparatus behind a band of innovators who were merely believed to be in the vanguard of things and traveling supposedly in the proper direction. We are sufficiently disabused and aware of how matters stand today, some sixteen years after the close of the Council. It is also becoming more and more difficult to keep on ignoring those who, for years, did not cease to repeat that it would finally become necessary to make realistic assessments and evaluations regarding the current state of affairs in the Church.
Not to exercise the appropriate discernment and supervision is to be led, in spite of oneself, to making constant concessions to anyone who, involved in the intellectual and pastoral realm, works to have his project received as an authentic post-conciliar development. This will be the case even though his project can be seen to be increasingly at odds with the letter and spirit of the Council, as fostered and commented upon by the Holy Father for the entire world. The constant concessions on this score are due, in one respect, to a lack of awareness by the bishops. Many of the bishops do not seem to notice the gap, in certain areas, between the direction which Rome indicates should be followed and the directions which "research" is in fact taking and which the bishops are pressured into sanctioning with their authority. This does not necessarily result in the issuance of official documents which are seriously questionable or even indefensible, but it does result, sometimes, in documents which are not all that clear, which are even dangerously slanted and unbalanced because of improperly nuanced emphases, or which prove to be sources of embarrassment and bewilderment due to their silence regarding important issues and their utilizing a theological vocabulary which is it self questionable. Thus a number of the more-or-less official commentaries have turned out to be actually counterproductive.
No love without truth
Although plentiful material is not lacking, it doesn't seem to me to be expedient to say anything further on these topics. The person who is determined not to let himself be affected in his particular course of action or nonaction by the many cautions which have been addressed in the last few years to the Church in France will always be able to come up with explanations as to why there is no real danger in putting off a response to these pressing issues. Such people will argue that if matters are not going all that well, they are not going all that badly either in the doctrinal and disciplinary orders; if they are perceived as going badly, it is only by those who possess a pessimistic, narrow, arrogant, and myopic mind set. The fact is that anyone who takes seriously the hypothesis that there is an urgent need to review many post-conciliar assessments and practices, to probe further into the actually existing theological and philosophical agendas (which have been habitually ignored), to recognize the gravity of a situation about which one is still not clear rather than waiting until the situation somehow works itself out--anyone who accepts the need for these things, will indeed end up by catching a glimpse of a possible solution. This will be especially true of anyone charged with pastoral responsibility and enlightened by the Holy Spirit for that purpose. The Holy Spirit will not allow it to be otherwise, especially in France where bishops, for too long a time, have been subjected to playing the part of the humiliated and defenseless father--to the shame and humiliation also of those members of their flock, who only want to hear and follow the voice of the Shepherd.
Meanwhile no one should want to humiliate or marginalize them even further, or to try to exempt themselves from their authentic Catholic authority. No one should underestimate the heavy burden of difficulties and contradictions which they have to shoulder today. They have to shoulder them especially because of the frame of mind presently operative among so many priests and lay people--who, whether they are in agreement or not, are being subjected to and bewildered by false ideological theologies purveyed by the false prophets of today against whom they have neither internal or external defense mechanisms. For the bishops must ceaselessly reckon with these false prophets and also with the effect of their theological fallout upon the clergy generally, and even upon many of the laity who sometimes consider themselves as having had their "consciousness raised" and having received a mandate to become involved in the Church's mission of renewal. The fallout at issue here is being caused by the crisis of modern thought, and it is in the process of tearing us apart. This is especially true in the case of the venerable and renowned religious orders, such as the Jesuits and Dominicans, whose vocation has traditionally been dedicated to intellectual pursuits.
There are, within these orders, a number of religious who are the source of great trials for their brethren. This is often the case because of the effect of their aberrant personal developments and life-styles--about which the majority of Christians have hardly any awareness, but which superiors frequently succeed in aggravating by their passive acceptance and even complicity. Yet these very same individuals are the same ones who continue to offer their services, even though proceeding from an intellectual wasteland, for the purpose of fostering a supposed aggiornamento of the People of God, and primarily of the clergy and religious. Not only do they offer themselves for this type of service, but cases abound where they are actually engaged to direct its implementation.
The phenomenon which we have tried to investigate is so vast, complicated, and hard to pin down, that we cannot claim to have brought to the surface and adequately treated in depth all the causes and effects in all their aspects. The obscure logic of this contagion can be aptly described as ideological. It actually empties the minds of those who it boasts about arming with a critical sense, and deprives them of the faculty for Christian and rational judgment and discernment. It is succeeding in the sense that Catholics as well as Protestants who come under its sway are soon no longer capable even of understanding either what separates them or unites them. Both have allowed themselves to wander far afield from the true coherence of the Christian faith. Why and how? At a time when the bankruptcy of all ideologies has become evident to anyone having eyes to see, and at a time when new opportunities present themselves for a renewed Christian faith liberated from their mistaken influence and sway, it has not been useless to raise all these questions and attempt to answer them.
In 1981, the late Father Paul Toinet, a noted theologian and seminary instructor in France, issued a sharp warning about the deterioration of Catholic doctrine in a book entitled L'Eglise en France. That book was translated by Msgr. Michael Wrenn and published by Franciscan Herald Press in 1982 as Theological Cautions; this essay is adapted from the second chapter of that book, "Conflicts and Dialogue in the Church."