Should Catholics Criticise Priests?
Blogged by James Preece on 19th June 2009
Today marks the first day of the Year for Priests which Pope Benedict has proclaimed "to deepen the commitment of all priests to interior renewal for the sake of a more forceful and incisive witness to the Gospel in today’s world" As a blogger who does a lot of complaining, it is often suggested that I do not have a lot of respect for priests. After all, I often complain about priests and accuse some of them of doing things they shouldn't. If I had respect for the priesthood, surely I would never criticise a priest? No matter how they behaved I would be silent and respectful.
I think it is a big mistake to think that hushed silence is a sign of respect. Quietly pretending that somebody did something right when they did it wrong is the sort of behaviour due to tyrannical kings, not priests. It is degrading to the priesthood itself that people feel the need to behave in this way, as if a priest is the Wizard of Oz and nothing more than a fraud hiding behind a facade. In other words, we do not disrespect priests when we say that a particular priest did something wrong, but we do disrespect priests when we say that the priesthood depends on every individual priest never making a mistake and on our covering their mistakes and pretending they don't exist.
To say otherwise is as ludicrous as saying that respect for the divine Kingship of Christ depends on pretending that Henry VIII was a nice guy because otherwise, you obviously don't respect kings. The priest is not of great importance because he never makes mistakes, the priest is of great importance because he is a priest! He is of great importance by virtue of his ordination, not by virtue of his virtue.
It seems to me that when we knowingly hide the negative aspects of a priests behaviour we essentially deny his priesthood because what we are doing is saying that his priesthood is merely a product of his actions. We are saying that we do not respect a priest because he is a priest but because he is a good man. Worse than that though, is that we base even this falsehood on a lie. We do not respect him because he is a good man, we pretend he is a good man so that we can respect him. What sort of respect is that? Think how that looks to the world at large: We value priests because they are good only they aren't always good so we pretend they are...
We value priests because they are priests!
The only possible way to do that, is to freely and openly acknowledge that some priests are very good, some priests are very bad and most priests are somewhere in between. In his letter proclaiming the Year for Priests, Pope Benedict writes...
There are also, sad to say, situations which can never be sufficiently deplored where the Church herself suffers as a consequence of infidelity on the part of some of her ministers. Then it is the world which finds grounds for scandal and rejection. What is most helpful to the Church in such cases is not only a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers, but also a joyful and renewed realization of the greatness of God’s gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors, religious afire with love for God and for souls, and insightful, patient spiritual guides.
[link]
Did you get that? Pope Benedict says that what is "most helpful to the Church" is "a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers" and the "renewed realization of the greatness of God’s gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors". In other words, when Fr Fun gets up to his usual tricks, what is "most helpful to the Church" is a frank and complete acknowledgement of what he is doing wrong and the renewed realization of how wonderful things are when Fr Faithful does them right.
So should Catholics criticise priests? It looks like the answer is that we should frankly and completely acknowledge their weaknesses with renewed realization of the greatness of God's gift embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors.
I think that might be Latin for "Yes".
















Reader Comments
Jackie Parkes said...
[Comment removed at Jackie's request]
+-
Ottaviani said...
"There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, Saint Paul, who was a subject of Saint Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of Saint Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), 'Saint Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects'."
St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa theologiae, Taurini/Romae: Marietti, 1948, II.II, q.33, a.4
+-
Agellius said...
Excellent analysis, James. Not only that, but obviously squelching criticism is what leads to the outbreak of huge scandals which might have been much less huge if people were not afraid to make heads roll. Heads need to roll!! When appropriate, of course.
+-
Agellius said...
By the way that's a beautiful picture, the one on the sidebar of (I assume) you flying a kite and (I assume) your daughter watching with delight.
+-
James said...
You assume right, that is our eldest daughter Leona watching as we go kite flying. More pictures here..
+-
Jane Teresa said...
As God's anointed, a Priest is close to God in the spiritual hierarchy.
As a person, a Priest can do very foolish things.
We should never criticise a Priest for who he is. We might sometimes, charitably, criticise a Priest for what he does.
The reason that people confound the two is that for the last 40 years hardly anyone has received adequate catechesis on the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
This Year of Priests is a much-needed corrective, which will bear fruit, I hope.
+-
Jackie Parkes said...
[Comment removed at Jackie's request]
+-
Victor Moubarak said...
Let us remember that priests are human, and as such they are liable to sin like the rest of us. Even the disciples sinned now and again ... e.g. Peter denying Christ, Thomas doubting the Resurrection.
This being said - leads one to question the infallibility of the Pope. Being human, does he sin? Does he get it wrong sometime?
Thanx.
http://timeforreflections.blogspot.com/
+-
Mark Dobson said...
Hi Victor,
It's a common mistake to think that the dogma of papal infallibility means that Catholics think the Pope doesn't sin (we know he does) or make mistakes (we know he does).
If you wanted a bit of clarification you could look at this from Catholic Answers:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9303iron.asp
If anyone knows of a better summary of the doctrine, perhaps they could post it.
+-