But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.”
To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good.
— Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, “On Christian Citizenship,” No. 14.
(LifeSiteNews) –– LifeSiteNews has recently published a heartfelt piece by Dom Pius Mary Noonan O.S.B, as a contribution to LifeSite’s ongoing debate on the claims of Francis to the papacy. Noonan, the founder of a monastery dedicated to the traditional rite of the Mass, fully recognizes the depth of the crisis in the Church. He writes:
It cannot be denied that this pontificate has been one long disaster. It seems almost every month, sometimes every week, brings more bad news: another scandalous appointment, yet another ambiguous or even overtly erroneous declaration of some sort. The faithful who remain attached to Tradition are bewildered, as are, clearly, a number of prelates who every now and then voice their concern but remain helpless to do anything about the situation.
He also recognizes that:
In this context, it is no surprise that the sedevacantist thesis has gained in popularity.
But he disagrees with LifeSiteNews’s approach, which is to give voice to the different opinions being taken on this question and provide a forum for charitable debate. He writes:
Unfortunately some traditional outlets relay these discussions, apparently convinced that somehow a debate as to whether or not we have a pope is good for the Church.
Noonan disagrees that such a debate is of benefit to the Church and instead argues that it should cease. Addressing the laymen involved in this debate, he writes: “Stop wasting your time and troubling the faithful.”
Noonan seems to regard the participation of laymen in such a debate questionable, writing that “most of those debating are not even priests, but laymen,” in any case, he holds that a debate of this nature should be carried out behind closed doors, as it “only exacerbates an already tense and loaded Church situation.” If laymen have concerns, they should, he contends, share their thoughts privately with members of the hierarchy. However, by speaking in public they are making the situation worse and are “troubling the faithful.”
After making this argument against the propriety of such a debate, he makes a contribution to it, presenting his reasons for considering that it is not possible to reach the conclusion that Francis is not the pope as a result of heresy.
In this article, I will share my reasons for profoundly disagreeing with Noonan’s position that lay people should not be discussing this matter in public. I will argue that the most important task before us is to discover the truth, and that it is always better to know the truth so we can make it the foundation of our actions. No matter how painful the truth may be, it is better to face it, and deal with its consequences, rather than hiding it or covering it up; this is a lesson which should have been learned following the clergy sex abuse scandal.
In a second article, I will explain why I consider that Noonan’s argument in defense of Francis’s claim is not successful.
-
The scandal caused by Francis is already public
Noonan writes:
Years ago, when I wrote my doctoral thesis, one of the points I made was that there were questions that are rightly debated among theologians that should not be brought out into the public. The reason is obvious: doing so only exacerbates an already tense and loaded Church situation. The wisdom of the ages is that when a man of learning has issues with the state of things, he must bring them to those who can do something about it, not to the simple faithful, who are neither equipped nor competent to judge the matter.
The greatest flaw in this argument is that the question of Francis’s papacy has not in fact become a matter of widespread discussion because it has been brought to the public’s attention by theologians or lay writers. Rather, doubts concerning the validity of Francis’s papacy have arisen as a result of Francis’s own public words and actions, which have deliberately, and calculatingly, been performed for all the world to see.
Francis has used his apparent occupation of the papal office to profess doctrines, and to establish practices, contrary to the Catholic faith. He has done this intentionally, and with planning and forethought. To recognize this, we need only consider the two carefully orchestrated family synods of 2014 and 2015, which led up to the 2016 “Apostolic Exhortation” Amoris Laetitia, and the approval of the interpretation given by the bishops of Argentina later that year. This was a carefully orchestrated strategy, which always had as its intention establishing a widespread practice of sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. But examples could be multiplied, as Noonan himself notes:
It seems almost every month, sometimes every week, brings more bad news: another scandalous appointment, yet another ambiguous or even overtly erroneous declaration of some sort.
These are the public acts which have raised the question of the validity of Francis’s claim to the papacy in the minds of many Catholics. Doubts about his claims arise naturally and logically from his words and actions and began to be voiced very early in his purported pontificate. These doubts are not the result of laymen, or anyone else, having “brought out into the public” thoughts and ideas which would otherwise have been hidden. Rather, LifeSiteNews’ debate comes in the context of discussions which have been going on for years.
-
What kind of scandal is Francis causing? Will this debate make the situation worse?
Francis is causing scandal in a number of different ways. Let’s briefly consider some of the groups most affected.
First, and perhaps most obviously, men and women are being confirmed in sinful acts and lifestyles by Francis’s false doctrine and evil disciplines. Secondly, there are men and women who, by following Francis as pope, are being led to abandon what the Church has always taught and adopt new doctrines, which are contrary to the Catholic faith. Thirdly, men and women are being kept away from the Catholic Church and are choosing not to enter her because they cannot recognize in Francis a true teacher of the Christian faith. Fourthly, there are Catholics who recognize that what Francis teaches is not compatible with what the Church has always taught and, unable to reconcile this with Catholic teaching on the papacy, are questioning whether the Catholic faith is actually true.
Let us dwell for a moment on the fourth group for a little longer, because I think that this is the group which is most harmed by the insistence that they must assent to the proposition that “Francis is pope.”
When thoughtful Catholics consider Francis’s words and actions, it follows that they ask how it is possible for these words and actions to proceed from a pope. That is, they necessarily seek to reconcile the words and actions of Francis with what they know of the nature and ends of the papal office. When they do this, they encounter a profound contradiction between what the Church teaches about the papacy and how Francis fulfils the office he purports to hold. This causes many to doubt that the Catholic faith is in fact true. I know such individuals personally, and I am sure many LifeSiteNews readers do as well.
For many of these men and women, attaining a sufficient answer to this question is profoundly important if they are to persevere in the Catholic faith. They are not seeking to understand everything, or to have everything worked out, but they do need some working model, or even a grasp of different competing hypotheses, as long as these provide an explanation by which apparent contradictions can be reconciled.
Even where an individual’s faith is not threatened, such an explanation or working model may be necessary when they are called upon to explain the apparent contradiction in response to questioning by children and grandchildren or friends and relatives. An individual may be prepared to simply hand the matter over to God in prayer, but they may still be called upon to answer questions posed by their children, for whose eternal salvation they have much responsibility.
“Dad,” a teenage daughter might say, “surely same sex relationships are OK, because the pope says they can be blessed?” “Mum,” a son might say, “what do you mean we’re not going to Joe’s wedding, the pope says people in second marriages can even receive Holy Communion, so it can’t possibly still be wrong!”
Parents in such a situation, and lay people in a whole range of similar situations, cannot possibly fulfil the injunction of St Peter to be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you” (1 Pet 3:15), if they are completely unprepared to give at least some reasonable explanation of what has happened in the Church.
Conservative clergy who hold that Francis must be accepted as pope very often rightly recommend prayer, perseverance and fidelity to what the Church has always taught to faithful in doubt. But while this advice is good, and indeed indispensable, it is not sufficient in assisting lay people to fulfil their very real familial and social responsibilities.
I am far from denying that the position that can be broadly called “recognize and resist” has proven to be a working model that in practice has helped many to retain a firm grasp on Catholic doctrine. But it is also the case that other Catholics find inconsistencies in this position which they have not been able to overcome. And that is not because they don’t understand the arguments of “R&R” proponents or because they lack the correct spiritual perspective, rather it is because they think that the arguments in favor of the “R&R” position simply do not work. I myself held a position akin to the standard “R&R” position, until I came to the conclusion – from the force of the theological arguments – that that position is simply untenable.
I fully understand Noonan’s concern that a debate such as this might trouble men and women who have not previously entertained the idea of a vacant see. But I would also strongly assert that this debate will prove beneficial for the many who fall into one of the four groups mentioned above. These men and women are being positively harmed – and are in danger of the eternal loss of their souls – by the proposition “Francis is certainly the pope”; it may be to their benefit to see that this position is open to challenge.
But, ultimately, all such considerations aside, what is best for all of us is to discover the truth, no matter how troubling or disturbing that may be. Fr Noël Barbara, one of the first generation of traditionalist defenders of the faith, aptly wrote:
In every problem, and above all in the present situation, there is no reason to fear the truth. Matters relating to the faith have nothing to fear from the truth.
And
The only thing which should guide our proceedings is the clarity of the truth. To act in any other way is to allow the Catholic resistance to die because of silence. [1]
Truth is often painful, but it is the only firm foundation on which to build, and the only basis for right action. It matters very much whether Francis is, or is not, the pope. The question has arisen from Francis’s own deliberate public words and calculated public actions, and I hold it to be both reasonable and responsible that the different views should be tested in fair and charitable discussion in order to arrive at the truth.
-
Ought laymen to engage in theological debate?
I have explained above that I think discussing Francis’s papal claims is reasonable and responsible. But ought laymen to be engaged in this debate, or should we leave it to the clergy?
Noonan seems to imply that laymen are not the appropriate participants in such a debate. He writes:
Most of those debating are not even priests, but laymen, some of them very gifted, who seem to consider themselves somehow endowed with a charism similar to that of the medieval University of Paris, whose master theologians certainly carried weight in the Church of their day. While it can be interesting to read what they have to say, it does not appear to be helpful.
And he tells them that they should:
Stop wasting your time and troubling the faithful.
Any discussion of the role of the laity in theological discussion must begin with consideration of the fact that the Catholic Church is a divinely established society governed by a divinely established hierarchy.
Since Pentecost, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine Head of the Church, has exercised the threefold ministry of Priest, Prophet, and King, through His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff, and through the college of bishops. As Priest he offers public worship, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and celebrates the other sacraments; as Prophet he teaches infallibly the true doctrine of the Church, and as King he exercises jurisdiction over the baptized in order to lead them to eternal bliss with Himself.
All human beings, without exception, are called to subject themselves to this threefold authority of Jesus Christ, exercised by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, in order to become, and remain, members of the Catholic Church.
The teaching authority (magisterium) of the Catholic Church is exercised by the Roman Pontiff and by the bishops who head the local churches, that is, the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction. It is exercised by no one else: not by priests, not by auxiliary bishops, not by religious, and not by laymen. Priests (and others) may, of course, assist ordinaries in their teaching function, for example when they are licensed to preach in a parish. In this sense they share in the teaching ministry possessed by the ordinary, but that teaching role is derived from the ordinary and is limited to the particular pastoral charge that they have been given.
No individual priest, or auxiliary bishop, has any teaching authority over other members of the lay faithful. Of course, like anyone else, they may explain, argue, reason, persuade, or exhort, but they cannot compel, or impose. The force of their words must come from the quality of their argument; they cannot teach with authority in the manner of a pope or an ordinary. Furthermore, no ordinary has teaching authority over men and women who are not his own subjects. Only one man has immediate teaching authority over all Catholics, and that is the Roman Pontiff. These distinctions are important to bear in mind, so that the Church can avoid the ever-present threat of clericalism, one of the manifestations of which is that clergy seek to exercise undue pressure over men and women who are not their subjects.
The pope and the ordinaries constitute the Church teaching and everyone else constitutes the Church taught. The pope and the ordinaries derive their doctrine from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and the other members of the Church receive their doctrine from the pope and the ordinaries.
Laymen (as well as priests, religious, and auxiliary bishops) are bound to receive the doctrine of the faith from this living magisterium of the Church.
But does the subordinate and receptive role of the laity mean that the laity have no role in studying the faith, writing about the faith, defending the faith, and propagating the faith?
Or to put it another way, while we must receive the doctrine of the faith docilely, and exactly as proposed by the Sacred Magisterium, may we nonetheless be active in propagating and defending it once we have received it?
For an authoritative answer to this question, let us turn to one who had the right to teach regarding it. That is, to the Supreme Teacher, the Supreme High Priest, the Supreme Governor – the Bishop of Rome himself.
-
The teaching of Pope Leo XIII on the role of the laity
In his encyclical letter Sapientiae Christianae, promulgated in 1890, Pope Leo XIII clearly set forth the responsibilities of the laity in propagating and defending the Catholic faith.
He began his treatment of the question by drawing the bishops’ attention to the dangers to the faith posed by the errors of liberalism which had already been devasting Europe and Latin America for a century, and have now, in 2025, become, as John Henry Newman foresaw in the 1870s, “an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth,” a “plague of infidelity,” “a typical image of the last times,” which gives our day “the evil prerogative of being like that more terrible season, when it is said that the elect themselves will be in danger of falling away.” [2]
Leo XIII lamented with “what bitterness and in how many guises war has been waged against the Church” as a result of liberalism, and he then proceeded to explain the role of the Catholic laity “under such evil circumstances.” He wrote:
[E]ach one is bound in conscience to watch over himself, taking all means possible to preserve the faith inviolate in the depths of his soul, avoiding all risks, and arming himself on all occasions, especially against the various specious sophisms rife among non-believers. [3]
In order “safeguard this virtue of faith in its integrity,” he taught that:
We declare it to be very profitable and consistent with the requirements of the time, that each one, according to the measure of his capacity and intelligence, should make a deep study of Christian doctrine, and imbue his mind with as perfect a knowledge as may be of those matters that are interwoven with religion and lie within the range of reason. [4]
That is to say, the Supreme Pontiff recommended every layman to study theology “according to the measure of his capacity and intelligence” and to “imbue his mind with as perfect a knowledge as may be” of philosophy, and other disciplines related to theology.
Furthermore:
[W]hen necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.” [5]
That is, not only the pope and bishop, but everyone, is obliged to use the knowledge he has acquired to instruct and encourage other members of the faithful, as well as to repel the attacks of unbelievers.
This is not only permitted to the laity but is in fact a duty which must be fulfilled.
For as the Supreme Pontiff taught:
To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. [6]
And he notes:
This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. [7]
The pope continues by asserting that:
The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. [8]
This paragraph, I would contend, is of great relevance to the argument of this article. As I explained in the section above, the faith of many Catholics is endangered by the lack of theological principles which enable them to reconcile the apparent contradictions that confront them. More than ever the faithful need to possess a firm of grasp of Catholic doctrine, and of Catholic theology, which will do more than anything else (other than prayer) to help them to preserve the Catholic faith. This is because, as Leo XIII teaches so clearly, Catholic doctrine has an “inherent power to drive away error” and there is “nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom that it should not be known.” Without true principles the faithful are left defenseless in the face of error.
The pope makes clear, as I stated above, that:
The office, indeed, of preaching, that is, of teaching, lies by divine right in the province of the pastors, namely, of the bishops whom ‘the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church of God.’ It belongs, above all, to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, established as head of the universal Church, teacher of all that pertains to morals and faith. [9]
But he makes equally clear that:
No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. [10]
These laymen:
[S]o often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received, becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith. [11]
And the pope continues:
Let each one, therefore, bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect, consequently, to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off errors the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought actively into play. [12]
Of course, the laity must receive the doctrine they defend and propagate from the teaching authority of the Catholic Church:
[T]hey receive their rule of faith from the Church, by whose authority and under whose guidance they are conscious that they have beyond question attained to truth. [13]
It is clear therefore, that the laity have an active role to play in both the propagation and defense of the faith, being always subject to legitimate authority. The legitimate authority in matters of faith and morals is that of the Catholic Church. This is the Church which, possessing an infallible teaching authority, always professes the one same Catholic faith, as Pope Leo XIII explains:
[T]he Church is one, because Jesus Christ is one, so throughout the whole Christian world there is, and ought to be, but one doctrine: ‘One Lord, one faith;’ ‘but having the same spirit of faith,’ they possess the saving principle whence proceed spontaneously one and the same will in all, and one and the same tenor of action. [14]
Those who publicly profess a doctrine which departs from this one faith are, necessarily, not legitimate teachers of the Catholic faith, and, indeed, not members of the Catholic Church at all. [15]
-
What kind of theological knowledge should the laity seek?
This question has already been substantially answered in the extracts from the encyclical letter Sapientiae Christianae which I have provided above. However, a brief look at the contribution of John Henry Newman will help us deepen our understanding of this subject.
I must admit that when I first read Noonan’s jibes at lay “masters” of theology, it put me in mind of the words of the nineteenth century priest Mgr George Talbot who, in a letter to Cardinal Manning criticizing John Henry Newman, once wrote:
What is the province of the laity? To hunt, to shoot, to entertain. These matters they understand, but to meddle with ecclesiastical matters they have no right at all. [16]
Newman had a different attitude towards the laity. In his lectures on The Present Position of Catholics in England, delivered in 1851, he spoke of the role of the laity in defending the faith in a hostile environment. Indeed, the whole passage is remarkably similar to that which Leo XIII would present to the universal Church nearly four decades later.
Newman wrote:
Fear not, little flock, for He is mighty who is in the midst of you, and will do for you great things. As troubles and trials circle round you, He will give you what you want at present— ‘a mouth, and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay.’ ‘There is a time for silence, and a time to speak;’ the time for speaking is come. [17]
In order that the laity could “speak,” Newman expressed, as Leo XIII would do later, his wish for a laity educated in theology and capable of both propagating and defending the faith:
What I desiderate in Catholics is the gift of bringing out what their religion is; it is one of those ‘better gifts,’ of which the Apostle bids you be ‘zealous.’ You must not hide your talent in a napkin, or your light under a bushel.
I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold, and what they do not, who know their creed so well, that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it.
I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity; I am not denying you are such already: but I mean to be severe, and, as some would say, exorbitant in my demands, I wish you to enlarge your knowledge, to cultivate your reason, to get an insight into the relation of truth to truth, to learn to view things as they are, to understand how faith and reason stand to each other, what are the bases and principles of Catholicism, and where lie the main inconsistences and absurdities of the Protestant theory. [18]
(Today perhaps Newman might emphasize the need for the laity to know “where lie the main inconsistencies and absurdities of the Modernist and Liberal theories.”)
He continued:
You ought to be able to bring out what you feel and what you mean, as well as to feel and mean it; to expose to the comprehension of others the fictions and fallacies of your opponents; and to explain the charges brought against the Church, to the satisfaction, not, indeed, of bigots, but of men of sense, of whatever cast of opinion. [19]
And Newman concluded with some interesting words on the internal effect that such study would have on those laymen who engage in it:
And one immediate effect of your being able to do all this will be your gaining that proper confidence in self which is so necessary for you.
You will fall back upon yourselves; you will be calm, you will be patient. Ignorance is the root of all littleness; he who can realize the law of moral conflicts, and the incoherence of falsehood, and the issue of perplexities, and the end of all things, and the Presence of the Judge, becomes, from the very necessity of the case, philosophical, long-suffering, and magnanimous. [20]
This passage is quite similar in meaning to that of Pope Leo XIII discussed above, as it speaks of the strengthening power of true principles in the hearts and minds of those who receive them. To gain a deeper understanding of the crisis in the Church, to see more clearly how difficulties can be resolved and contradictions reconciled, will do much to strengthen the faithful in enduring the trials that still lie ahead of us with calmness, patience, and longanimity.
-
Why is it laymen who are engaging in this debate?
Noonan writes:
From this debate are notoriously absent precisely the ones who have the grace to discern the truth of the matter, namely the cardinals and, to a certain extent, the bishops.
Noonan is quite correct to note that “the cardinals and, to a certain extent, the bishops” are “notoriously absent” from this debate. But they are “notoriously absent” because they have absented themselves, not because they are being excluded by the laity. For the last twelve years, despite scandal after scandal disturbing the Catholic faithful, the putative hierarchy (with a few exceptions, such as Bishop Joseph Strickland and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò) have adopted one of two positions: collaboration or silence.
Indeed, this problem, as Noonan indicates in his article, did not begin with Francis. For nearly sixty years the post-conciliar hierarchy, has failed (individual bishops and actions excepted), to teach the Catholic faith, to sanctify the faithful with the received rites of the Church, and to govern them in such a manner as to direct their souls towards eternal life. Paul VI was quite correct to speak of the “auto-demolition” of the Church. It is an “auto-demolition” which he initiated, and in which almost all the putative hierarchy has collaborated that from that day to this.
I am quite sure that future generations will regard what happened to the Catholic Church in the 1960s and 1970s as the greatest crime in human history. It was nothing less than an attempt at the systematic destruction of the Catholic Church in every part of the world. Almost overnight the faith ceased to be taught across dioceses and parishes in every nation, the sacramental rites of the Roman church were suppressed, churches were desecrated, books tossed out or destroyed, altars and statues smashed, devotions mocked, and hundreds of millions of Catholics put through unspeakable psychological and spiritual torment. The men who had been the Church teaching, transformed into themselves into what we could call the church abusing. And the laity were transformed from the Church taught, into the church abused.
Indeed, the sexual abuse of children which became prevalent among a small minority of clergy at this time, and which was covered up by a larger minority, is no doubt linked to the wider system of psychological and spiritual abuse perpetrated by those clergy who collaborated in the imposition of a new religion upon the laity. This false hierarchy, the church abusing, is most certainly not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, for as Archbishop Lefebvre succinctly said:
All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning, accept and adhere to this new ‘Conciliar Church’… and they enter into the schism. [21]
And:
That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive….
The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. [22]
The term “Conciliar Church” was coined by Paul VI, who as early as 1966 had spoken of the process of “transforming oneself into the image of the conciliar Church.” [23] Under Francis the name of the church abusing has been updated from “Conciliar Church” to “Conciliar/Synodal Church” or simply “Synodal Church.”
The Synodal Church is a body quite distinct from the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, even if many Catholics remain caught up in its snares. Indeed, the confusion that many men and women have – that all of us have to some degree – in identifying the precise boundaries between these two bodies is itself a good argument in favor of the current vacancy of the Holy See. The pope is, as Pope Leo XIII taught, the “efficient cause of unity” in the Church, that is, the pope is the means by which the Church is united. [24] He is the rule of faith which all follow, the supreme authority whom all obey, and the Supreme High Priest in communion with whom all worship. The elements of disunity that exist amongst Catholics today, while not eliminating the mark of unity, do indeed obscure it. This is a clear indication that the “efficient cause” of ecclesiastical unity – the pope – is absent.
This ecclesiastical crisis – wholly unprecedented in the history of the Church – has created the conditions in which the laity have been compelled to play a more active role in the defense and propagation of the faith.
In the absence of leadership from the putative hierarchy – or in the face of active persecution by the same – many laymen have felt it necessary to step forward and play roles within the Church, such as studying, debating, and writing about theology, which in earlier times would have been fulfilled largely, though not exclusively, by priests. These laymen have done this out of love for the Church, a desire to preserve their own faith and that of their children, for whom they are responsible before God, as well a desire to serve their wider society.
This involvement of the laity has often been against their own inclinations. The majority would, I suggest, have desired to simply attend Mass, and docilely receive the doctrine of the Church from the pulpit, as their ancestors had done before them. But the “auto-demolition” of the Church, carried out before their very eyes by collaborationist clergy has deprived them of this experience of normal Catholic life.
Many priests, of course, have shown themselves profoundly grateful for the participation of the laity. Many priests know how important the contribution of the laity is. But there can be few Catholics today who have not also experienced clerical condescension.
It is difficult not to see such condescension in the following words of Noonan, which I quoted earlier, and will quote again:
Most of those debating are not even priests, but laymen, some of them very gifted, who seem to consider themselves somehow endowed with a charism similar to that of the medieval University of Paris, whose master theologians certainly carried weight in the Church of their day. While it can be interesting to read what they have to say, it does not appear to be helpful.
And:
The fact that our age of social media makes it possible for anyone to become a “master” in just about anything and to have a considerable following does not dispense those with learning to respect the wisdom of the ages.
And:
Stop wasting your time and troubling the faithful.
I am reasonably confident that most of the laymen participating in this debate, on both sides of the question, would rather be doing something else with their time. Most of us just want to live out the faith in peace. If instead we spend time thinking about and writing about these issues, it is because of the catastrophic failure of hierarchy to fulfil the duties attached to the offices which they claim to hold.
Further, many of the laymen whom Noonan seems, unfortunately, to have chosen to mock have achieved academic excellence in their own fields. At least two of the laymen involved in this debate are “masters” or “doctors” in theology; other men are “masters” or “doctors” in related disciplines. The standard of argument and referencing of the lay side of the debate has been high. All these men, whatever position they take, are attempting to place their gifts at the service of the Church, at a time when those who have the responsibility to speak have made the decision to remain silent.
It may be that one of the reasons why the laity is disproportionately represented in this debate is because of the widespread collapse of academic excellence in the educational institutions associated with the putative hierarchy. Throughout her history the Catholic Church has sought to promote education, and to prioritize the education of her clergy. Traditional Catholic seminaries, under difficult circumstances, have retained the traditional approach to priestly formation, just as they have retained traditional doctrine and the traditional rites. However, in the “mainstream” seminaries there has been an almost total collapse in the quality of intellectual formation, alongside the abandonment of Catholic orthodoxy.
This means that while it used to be the case that the clergy as a body of men were well formed in philosophy and theology, this is usually no longer the case with men who attended post-conciliar seminaries. Indeed, what has taken place in many seminaries since the 1960s is better described as an anti-education, and a malformation (moral and psychological as well as intellectual), rather than a process which brings forth well-formed, well-educated, and mature priests. Many learned clergy and religious would, I am sure, acknowledge that they learned much more from self-study than they received from their seminary formation – and this places them in the same category as the laity as regards traditional formation in theology and philosophy.
As regards this current debate, it may simply be that there are more laymen – held to much higher academic standards in secular universities – who are able to engage in academic debate than clergy, whose only higher education may have been limited to a post-conciliar seminary. This is perhaps the first time in history when a large proportion of the laity are much better educated than the bulk of the clergy, even in the areas of philosophy and theology.
Nonetheless, I do not believe that the poor standard of seminary formation is the primary reason for the predominance of lay contributions to this debate. If laymen are disproportionally involved in these debates, it is primarily because of the catastrophic, decades long, failure of the post-conciliar clergy, as a collective body of men, to fulfil the duties of the state of life which they freely chose and accepted. In the vacuum created by this dereliction of duty, laymen who do feel a sense of duty are almost ineluctably moved to act.
-
Ought laymen to share their thoughts with the hierarchy in private rather than in public?
Noonan writes:
Years ago, when I wrote my doctoral thesis, one of the points I made was that there were questions that are rightly debated among theologians that should not be brought out into the public. The reason is obvious: doing so only exacerbates an already tense and loaded Church situation. The wisdom of the ages is that when a man of learning has issues with the state of things, he must bring them to those who can do something about it, not to the simple faithful, who are neither equipped nor competent to judge the matter.
These men should be lobbying bishops and cardinals to think these matters through and give an answer. Should they be right, they must believe that the Holy Spirit will inspire prelates, whose role it is to defend the Church of God, to speak out for what appears to them to be true.
I have already addressed the claim that this debate is exacerbating the situation in the Church. In this section I wish to address the question of whether the laymen involved ought to be bringing these matters before the cardinals and bishops, rather than the general public.
I certainly agree with Noonan that such ideas ought to be brought before the apparent hierarchy in the hope that they will affirm the Catholic faith and show themselves – even after decades of collaboration in the “auto-demolition” of the Church – to be willing and capable of acting in a manner which accords with the offices which they claim to hold.
But I know that these concerns have in fact already been brought to the attention of cardinals and bishops by concerned laymen, as well as by priests. The problem, of course, is not that the cardinals and bishops are unaware, but that they have failed to act on the knowledge which they possess.
More than eight years ago, Cardinal Burke outlined the steps of a process which would terminate, if Francis persisted in heresy, in the cardinals declaring that he had automatically lost his office. [25] Yet, despite Francis doubling down on the heresies in Amoris Laetitia, and adding more to the list, the cardinals have done nothing at all. It is reasonable to assume that this is because there was not enough support among the cardinals to move forward.
If Cardinal Burke has not been able to move his fellow cardinals to act, how likely is it they will listen to laymen? This does not completely negate the value of communicating with them, but it would be extremely naive to think that this is a body of good and faithful men who only need to be informed of the truth in order to do the right thing. If that was so, they would have acted many years ago.
While we must hope and pray that some of them will be moved to act, we must in the meantime reach out directly to the laity, to strengthen and safeguard their faith in the indefectibility of the Catholic Church.
In his article Noonan uses a curious phrase, referring to “prelates who every now and then voice their concern but remain helpless to do anything about the situation.”
I am sure many readers have had experiences of “helpless” members of the hierarchy over the years. These are the men who assure you that they understand your concerns, that they too lament the evils afflicting the Church, but who also assure you that they are “helpless” to do anything about. These men often then switch to telling the laity what they should do about the issues raised, that is, they try to shift their own responsibilities onto the shoulders of the already overburdened laity. Yet these are responsibilities that they freely chose to accept. No man is forcibly ordained to the priesthood, forcibly consecrated a bishop, or forcibly elevated to the College of Cardinals.
Imagine lay people attempting get away with such negligence! Imagine doctors, pilots, engineers, or soldiers attempting a dereliction of duty on the scale of the collaborationist clergy. Many of these men cannot even celebrate the liturgy with basic dignity or preach a sermon setting out basic truths from the catechism. Yet how patient we lay folk have been with men who freely accepted all the privileges of their offices and yet have consistently failed to fulfil their duty and defend the flock of Christ from ravenous wolves!
The truth is: if they are the Catholic hierarchy, they are not helpless.
These men may be confused, they may be ignorant, they may be cowards, but if they really are what they claim to be, they are not helpless.
If they are the Catholic hierarchy then they are those to whom Our Lord said: “behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Mt 28:20) If they are the Catholic hierarchy, then St. Paul speaks to them, as he spoke to St. Timothy:
For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety. Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God. (2 Tim 1:6-8)
Pope Leo XIII did not view the hierarchy over which he presided as “helpless” in the face of evil. In Sapientiae Christianae he taught:
[W]ant of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful.
After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted.
Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.”(13) Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace. [26]
Many of us will have heard clergy justify their inaction with the claim that they must be “prudent.” But the real virtue of prudence has nothing to do with timidity and undue caution. Prudence is the virtue by which man judges correctly, in accordance with reason.[27] But many clergy use it as a way of justifying their passivity. Many also then add insult to injury by suggesting that is easier for lay people – with jobs, rents mortgages, families – to speak out than men to whom the Holy Ghost has been given that they may fulfil Our Lord’s command:
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. (Mt 28:19-20)
Pope Leo XIII has harsh words for such false prudence:
The prudence of men of this cast is of that kind which is termed by the Apostle Paul ‘wisdom of the flesh” and ‘death’ of the soul, `because it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be. Nothing is less calculated to emend such ills than prudence of this kind. [28]
And he writes:
Some there are, indeed, who maintain that it is not opportune boldly to attack evil – doing so in its might and when in the ascendant, lest, as they say, opposition should exasperate minds already hostile. [29]
And, in words which well-describe the bulk of the putative hierarchy today:
These make it a matter of guesswork as to whether they are for the Church or against her, since on the one hand they give themselves out as professing the Catholic faith, and yet wish that the Church should allow certain opinions, at variance with her teaching, to be spread abroad with impunity.
They moan over the loss of faith and the perversion of morals, yet trouble themselves not to bring any remedy; nay, not seldom, even add to the intensity of the mischief through too much forbearance or harmful dissembling. [30]
The enemies of Church do not show such weakness:
For the enemies of the Church have for their object – and they hesitate not to proclaim it, and many among them boast of it – to destroy outright, if possible, the Catholic religion, which alone is the true religion. With such a purpose they shrink from nothing, for they are fully conscious that the more fainthearted those who withstand them become, the more easy will it be to work out their wicked will.
Therefore, they who cherish the ‘prudence of the flesh’ and who pretend to be unaware that every Christian ought to be a valiant soldier of Christ; they who would obtain the rewards owing to conquerors, while they are leading the lives of cowards, untouched in the fight, are so far from thwarting the onward march of the evil – disposed that, on the contrary, they even help it forward. [31]
But this is the shameful state of the collaborationist hierarchy today. To them let Leo XIII speak, as he spoke to a certainly Catholic hierarchy one hundred and thirty-five years ago, urging them to be an example to the faithful, not the other way around:
The observance of these duties cannot be troublesome or onerous, for the yoke of Jesus Christ is sweet, and His burden is light. If anything, however, appear too difficult of accomplishment, you will afford aid by the authority of your example, so that each one of the faithful may make more strenuous endeavor, and display a soul unconquered by difficulties.
Bring it home to their minds, as We have Ourselves oftentimes conveyed the warning, that matters of the highest moment and worthy of all honor are at stake, for the safeguarding of which every most toilsome effort should be readily endured; and that a sublime reward is in store for the labors of a Christian life.
On the other hand, to refrain from doing battle for Jesus Christ amounts to fighting against Him; He Himself assures us ‘He will deny before His Father in heaven those who shall have refused to confess Him on earth.’ [32]
-
Are the laity responsible for disturbing the faithful?
In his article Noonan accuses the laymen involved in this debate of making the crisis in the Church worse. He writes:
While it can be interesting to read what they have to say, it does not appear to be helpful.
And:
Years ago, when I wrote my doctoral thesis, one of the points I made was that there were questions that are rightly debated among theologians that should not be brought out into the public. The reason is obvious: doing so only exacerbates an already tense and loaded Church situation.
Therefore:
The wisdom of the ages is that when a man of learning has issues with the state of things, he must bring them to those who can do something about it, not to the simple faithful, who are neither equipped nor competent to judge the matter.
And he counsels:
Stop wasting your time and troubling the faithful.
But the strongest accusation of comes at the end the article. He writes:
In the meantime, those who persist in declaring to the world that they know he is not the Pope are just emulating the one they condemn: they are making a bigger mess. And the world laughs.
Here he equates Catholics discussing grave problems afflicting the Church with the one responsible for causing the problem.
To see how profoundly unjust this is, let’s examine a couple of parallels.
Let’s imagine a scenario in which a President or Prime Minister has gone insane and is no longer capable of fulfilling his office. His strange antics on the world stage are making a laughingstock of his country, while those in government refuse to take any action, or even recognize the problem.
Would it be reasonable to regard the investigative journalists exposing his behavior, or the lawyers asking whether he can retain the office, as responsible for the damage to the nation’s reputation caused by the insane leader? Would it not rather be regarded as laudable that the nation had a press and a legal system capable of addressing the problem?
Or to use a more painful example, and one closer to home, the clergy child sex abuse scandal has gravely damaged the reputation of the priesthood. As a result of the actions of a small minority, the world literally laughs every day at jokes made at the expense of the clergy on this subject. There can be few priests who do not feel the indignity and humiliation of this.
But who is responsible for making the clergy a laughingstock in this regard? Is it the victims who reported the abuse? Is it the police who investigated it? Is it the lawyers who prosecuted abusers or the judges who passed sentence?
No, the blame lies squarely with the clergy who carried out the abuse, and with those in the hierarchy who covered it up. Indeed, few would now doubt that the cover-up made the eventual damage to the reputation of the clergy many times worse.
In the same way, Francis and his collaborators are responsible for the scandal that arises from their words and actions, and not those who challenge them.
If the world laughs today, it is because a man who is clearly not a Catholic is playing the role of pope on the world stage.
Whatever faults we laymen who hold the see is vacant may have, responsibility for that scandal is not amongst them.
References
↑1 | Fr Noël Barbara, Fortes in Fide, No.12. |
---|---|
↑2 | The first quotation is taken from the “Biglietto Address” give in Rome, on 12 May 1879, when he was elevated to the College of Cardinals: https://www.newmanreader.org/works/addresses/file2.html#weld. The following quotations are from a sermon entitled “The Infidelity of the Future” preached at the opening of a new seminary in Birmingham, England on 2 October 1873: https://www.newmanreader.org/works/ninesermons/sermon9.html. |
↑3 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 13. |
↑4 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 13. |
↑5, ↑6, ↑7 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 14. |
↑8, ↑9 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 15. |
↑10, ↑11, ↑12 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 16. |
↑13, ↑14 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 21. |
↑15 | For more on this doctrine, see the series which begins here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/what-is-the-relationship-between-church-members-and-authority/. |
↑16 | Mgr Talbot to Cardinal Manning, quoted in https://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter24.html |
↑17 | John Henry Newman, “Lecture 9: Duties of Catholic towards the Protestant View, The Present Position of Catholics in England (1851). Source: https://www.newmanreader.org/works/england/lecture9.html. |
↑18, ↑19, ↑20 | Newman, “Lecture 9”, Present Position. |
↑21 | Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, on August 2, 1976 and published in the French magazine Le Figaro, August 4, 1976. https://web.archive.org/web/20211129063543/https://fsspx.com/Communicantes/Oct2002/Servile_Obedience.htm |
↑22 | Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976. |
↑23 | Paul VI, “Address to Members of the Permanent Committee of the International Congresses for the Apostolate of the Laity”. A translation can be found at Novus Ordo Watch: https://novusordowatch.org/2022/04/paul6-lay-leaders-transform-into-conciliar-church/. |
↑24 | Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, No.13. |
↑25 | See the interview Cardinal Burke gave on 19 December 2016: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/12/19/cardinal-burke-no-i-am-not-saying-that-pope-francis-is-in-heresy/. |
↑26 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 14. |
↑27 | See St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, q. 47 for a full account of the virtue of prudence. |
↑28, ↑31 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 34. |
↑29 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 33. |
↑30 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 33. |
↑32 | Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, No. 43. |