Catholicism as "a living" ...
in the Body of Christ
is not a polite, or even a kind assessment ... but it is true
and it has historical antecedents
that even predate Christianity:
Thucydides', History of the Peloponnesian War, the greatest
Commander in classical antiquity, the Spartan General Brasidas, in the
winter of the 8th year of the war, laid siege to the strategic city
of Amphipolis in northern Hellas in 424 BC (visited, incidentally, by
Socrates while serving in the Athenian Army) where in a later battle,
in 421 BC, Brasidas himself was to die. He headed the most successful
army of Sparta.
not, however, by force of arms that Brasidas entered the besieged city,
but through sedition and not, interestingly enough by the demos,
or people, of Amphipolis, but principally through the people of the
neighboring city of Argilus "who had their own designs on Amphipolis"
(Bk. 4/103) and their countrymen inside its walls. Amphipolis fell without
a fight, and even in subsequent wars was never recovered by Athens.
the Peloponnesian Paradigm
... you ask, what possible connection exists between today's
"Professional" Catholics in the Church, and the Argilians who lived inside the walls of Amphipolis?
To answer this, we must
first clearly understand the nature of a parasite (such an impolite
term!): it is an organism
that lives in or on a host
from which it obtains nourishment
without benefiting or killing the host, even as it
The Argilians were essentially parasites: they lived, profited through,
enacted perfunctory rituals within, and took shelter under the aegis
of of Amphipolis ... even as they planned and executed the betrayal
of the vast majority of native Hellenes or Athenians within her. While
not native Amphipolans, or, for that matter, Athenians, they were, in
a manner of speaking, "professional" Amphipolans. They earned their
wages and some made their small fortunes solely through their association
with Amphipolis. They had no allegiance to except inasmuch as they
could earn a living through the Athenians at Amphipolis, whom they
emulated even as they despised them.
It is not the case that the Argilians looked to the Lakedaemonians (the
Spartans) as their liberators (which Brasidas sincerely believed himself
and his army to be); they did not love Sparta, but they hated Athens.
Yet, daily they passed in and out of her walls, ate in her fields and
sold in her markets.
earn a living in Amphipolis ... even as they hated her.
It is notable
that even as their hatred festered, they did nothing overtly treasonable
until an opportune time ... in fact, until the appearance of the leading
elements of Brasidas' cavalry at the gates of Argilus. The designs they
could not effect on Amphipolis of themselves, they could, they understood
at once, effect through Brasidas, and they used him to this end.
as "a job"
The situation we presently face within the Roman Catholic
Church is not entirely unlike the situation in which Amphipolis found
itself in 424 BC. The Church is morbidly infected and dangerously bloated with "Professional"
Catholics, that is to say, Catholics to whom, and for whom, "being Catholic"
is a means to emolument, money; for whom Catholicism is a job, an income,
and in many cases a "profession" (not to be confused with a
Profession of Faith).
Given the American Corporate model around which the Church in America
appears to be increasingly molding itself, there is no inherent contradiction
in working for the corporation and hating the boss who runs it.
of significant divergence, however, is that in secular Corporate America,
the expression of such sentiments is likely to end at the back of the
unemployment line. What is strange is that in such an event, we seldom,
or rarely encounter the charge of intolerance (in the form of litigation).
The reasoning appears to be legitimate: if you do not like it here,
you are free to leave and find a job elsewhere and more to your liking.
XYZ Company produces and pushes products and services much more to your
liking, and in better keeping with, or at least more amenable to, your
lifestyle. However ... if you choose to stay here at ABC Company which
produces and markets goods and services deeply antithetical to those
of XYZ Company's whose interests are not only at odds with, but in
fact inimical to our own we presume that you will be loyal to the
interests of ABC Company who is, after all, paying you to produce our
own authentic goods and providing loyal services. If you are willing
to take our money, you must be willing to agree with, and abide by,
our policies. This is not tyranny. If you find such policies repugnant
to you, you are free to keep them to yourself, or to leave; you are,
however, not free to disseminate policy of your own making, or goods
and services promoted by XYZ Company .... and pass them off as ours.
This is egregiously duplicitous and dishonest, is it not? In this way
only do we see a significant divergence between the secular corporate
model and its ecclesiastical emulation.
Church you can stay, promote your own unique and incompatible agenda
... and even get paid for it. Not a bad deal. Except for the Church
... and the children.
To do otherwise clearly requires a measure of some integrity. It requires
something more than a neurotic paralysis between incompatible choices.
Integrity should compel us to do, not what is profitable at any cost
... but what is right. To be paid to make one thing and to
make another is one example. To be paid to teach one thing,
and then to take it upon ourselves to teach its contradictory for the
same pay is, I suggest, another and extremely eminent example of the
absence of integrity.
This breach of integrity however lamely excused (and there are always
excuses, and they will always be cleverly couched, for they are self-interested)
is exponentially compounded not by the intrinsic disorder within it,
and not even by a breach of faith with what is presumed to be holy.
It is, in the end, theft of the most execrable kind: it is predation
of the Widow's Mite. It is a taking of the 25 cents from the 7 year
old girl, the dollar from the 85 year old man and sometimes the lunch
money from some destitute student .... to make a comfortable living
dissenting from the very things they hold sacred and to which they contribute
at so great a cost in so little a gift. It is, as it ever has been,
a taking by the powerful from the powerless. It is nothing less. We
know the victims. They fill every pew. Now ... who are the predators?
The "Professional Catholics"
The division of labor in fleecing the poor to their
own ends ... which is to say, in defiance of and in contradiction to
the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church to which the
"ignorant masses" pay tribute in coppers of real sacrifice ... is fairly
equally distributed between clergy and lay and especially those in
that amorphous penumbra in between, ranging from local "Pastoral Assistant"
to theologian-cum-Mandatum. Let us enumerate a few. All are
putative docents of sorts, and the one thread binding their diversity
is this: disaffection. Disaffection from the Church. From Rome. And
sometimes from God.
we've put a point on the needle, let us touch a few of the more bloated
institutions ... but with the blunt end first; you know, the one with
the proverbial "eye" ... the passage through which bloated purses and
personalities are said to be so problematic. Too quick a thrust with
the pointed end would at least narratively be anticlimactically
implosive. Let us start with the Catholic Colleges, Seminaries and "Theological
Institutes" where the "profession" is most lucrative, the dissension
most strident and the disaffection deepest. The commensurability between
the latter two and the first (the emolument) appears to be fairly proportioned.
Where to begin?
is long, involuted, and often redundant. Perhaps it is well to start
at the apex where the dissidence and, commensurably, the "professional"
salaries are greatest; in other words, where dissidence is most amply
rewarded and appears to be the sine qua non of "academic" credibility.
We must, however, and in all fairness, preface our consideration of
this implosive topic by a clear understanding of something contractual
and signatory in nature and morally binding in purpose, scope, and intent.
In other words, if you "sign on the dotted line" you agree, in taking
the money, to do the job, not as you see it, but according to the job
description clearly outlined in the contract. To do otherwise is clearly
You want the money and you want the job title both are very appealing
and the latter redounds to your notability but the fact of the matter
is that you really do not want to do that particular job. The perquisites,
nevertheless, are very compelling indeed. It is vexing, but it remains
the case withal that, once you have entered into the contract, you have
agreed, for example, to refrain from insider trading and to act honestly
on behalf of the brokerage and its legitimate interests which, presumably,
coincide with yours, as well as those of the investors who have entrusted
their interests to you ... or you would not have applied in the first
place .... right? You will not, by contract, broker securities that
are not within the portfolio of the brokerage, offer misleading advice,
or encourage your investors to go elsewhere. You concurred with the
terms of the contract, they are amenable to you, and the compensation
is handsome, so ..... you sign up. Correct?
Yes and no. In the cut-throat, self-interested world of corrupt Corporate
America such agreements, such contracts are, in fact, binding and even
actionable; however often they are violated as a matter of fact, there
is a real or at least a presumed binding in such contractual agreements,
together with legal recourse and punitive sanctions in the event of
breach. In fact, it is of the essence of contractual agreements that
they bind; otherwise the notion of a contract becomes incomprehensible.
The moral, the ethical,
dimension that has a direct bearing on the integrity of the individual
signatory to the contract is much simpler. One simply does not (or clearly
ought not) enter into, nor remain within, affairs that entail a conflict
of interest. It is both morally reprehensible and egregiously self-interested.
One does not earn ones living by violating ones keep. It is a matter
of irreconcilable contrariety. One who agrees to work for, and be paid
by, the Anti-Defamation League, and then uses that money and position
to promote anti-Semitism, is, I suggest, guilty of more than mere duplicity
in advocating the liquidation of his employer.
And now, literally, to the heart of the matter: What is the Contract
and what is the Breach?
Ex Corde Ecclesiae:
"Out of the Heart of the Church"
The Apostolic Constitution on Higher Education
Vital points of consideration
let us look at:
The Apostolic Constitution itself:
Apostolic Constitution on Higher Education, "Ex Corde Ecclesiae"
"Out of the Heart of the Church" was issued by Pope John Paul II
in 1990 and requires professors of Catholic theology within Catholic
colleges and universities obtain a "mandatum", or mandate,
from the local bishop (click
here to view the actual Mandatum Contract)
. Professors must petition for the mandate, the purpose of which is
ensure that Catholic theologians teach authentically Catholic doctrine,
and "refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary
to the Church's Magisterium. Such a petition may be denied by the local
bishop, or a given mandate withdrawn if the bishop deems that the theologian
is not teaching doctrine that accords with the Magisterium of the Church;
in other words, if it does not proceed ex corde Ecclesiae.
Let us briefly look at some pertinent excerpts (click here for the entire
text). The Apostolic Constitution calls for:
to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church" (Part
a Catholic University ... Catholic ideals, attitudes and principles
penetrate and inform university activities ..." (ibid. 1.14)
consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that
the institutional fidelity of the University to the Christian message
includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority
of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Catholic members of
the University community are also called to a personal fidelity
to the Church with all that this implies." (ibid. 3.27)
need be, a Catholic University must have the courage to speak uncomfortable
truths which do not please public opinion, but which are necessary
to safeguard the authentic good of society." (ibid. 32)
a natural expression of the Catholic identity of the University,
the university community should give a practical demonstration of
its faith in its daily activity, with important moments of reflection
and prayer." (ibid. 39)
is a question not only of preaching the Gospel ... but also of affecting
and, as it were, upsetting, through the power of the Gospel, humanity's
criteria of judgment, determining values, points of interest, lines
of thought, sources of inspiration and models of life, which are
in contrast with the Word of God and the plan of salvation." (ibid.
General Norms ... are valid for all Catholic Universities and other
Catholic Institutions of Higher Studies throughout the world." (II.1)
General Norms are to applied concretely at the local and regional
levels." (ibid. 2)
Catholic University, as Catholic, informs and carries out its research,
teaching, and all other activities with Catholic ideals, principles,
and attitudes. It is linked with the Church either by a formal,
constitutive and statutory bond or by reason of an institutional
commitment." (ibid. 2.2
teaching and discipline are to influence all university activities
..." (ibib. 2.4)
responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity
of the University ... calls for the recruitment of adequate personnel,
especially teachers and administrators, who are both willing and
able to promote that identity. The identity of a Catholic University
is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect
for Catholic doctrine." (ibid. 4.1)|
all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers
are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and
teaching. In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfill
a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium
of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and
Sacred Tradition." (ibid. 4.3)
particular laws or customs presently in effect that are contrary
to this Constitution are abolished. Also, any privileges up to this
day by the Holy See whether to physical or moral persons that are
contrary to this present Constitution are abolished." (ibid. 5.11)
As we see in the Apostolic Constitution, Ex Corde
Ecclesiae, the Holy See is unequivocally clear and extraordinarily
succinct in the stipulations outlined in the contract binding the Catholic
theologian to the Magisterium, or authentic teaching, of the Church. Its clarity,
in fact, is pristine; there is little, if any, room for casuistic interpretation
of the Holy See's expectations. There is equally little room for latitude
in interpreting the commitment to teaching authentic Church doctrine
that is to say, explicitly, doctrine that completely accords with
the Magisterium of the Church
on the part of the applicant, the professor-hopeful.
The difficulty comes to us, really, in the form of the simplest disjunction
in syllogistic reasoning evidencing itself in the manifest absence of
correspondence between otherwise irreconcilable propositions :
"You must explicitly agree to abide by the terms."
"I explicitly agree to abide by the terms. So much so, in fact, that
I am signatory to them
nevertheless, I hold myself to be
Apart from the formal, or logical subreption, there is the salient ethical
breach, and this, of the two, strikes us most forcefully. Inadvertent
errors in reasoning are of the nature of defect; deliberate breaches
of ethics are of the nature of malice. As Alisdair McIntyre, perhaps
the most eminent 21st century moral philosopher, once astutely noted,
to hold oneself in exception to, or self-exempt from, otherwise universally
binding norms, is not simply immoral, but of the essence of the unethical,
the immoral. In other words, I hold myself to be an exception to the
rule ... to which all others must, or at least ought, to comply. I hold
such rules to be legitimately binding ... but not upon me.
Were it simply a matter of cognitive dissonance we could dismiss the
matter merely as a psychological aberration ... were it not pandemic
within Catholic theological academia, where, as we have said, open and
abrasive dissent is the sine qua non of acceptable academic credentials
and the appropriate posture of plausibility. The problem is deeper.
take, for example, the curious figure of one Daniel Moynihan who, according
to his own web site 1, is the author of Sacred Choices:
The Right to Contraception and Abortion in Ten World Religions,
among several other ... titles, admonishes us that,
listened much too much to the penis when we should have
sought an audience with the clitoris."
(The Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive
Health & Ethics)
Maguire is a Professor of Moral Theological Ethics at Marquette
University, a Catholic, Jesuit Institution and President
of the Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive
Health and Ethics. Dr. Maguire has a degree in Sacred Theology
from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, one of
the worlds major Catholic universities. He is the author
of Sacred Choices: The Right to Contraception and Abortion
in Ten World Religions, Fortress Press, 2001.
Dr. Maguire has written over 150 articles printed in publications
such as The New York Times, Atlantic, USA Today, The Crisis:
Journal of the NAACP, etc. The articles include "Different
but Equal: A Moral Assessment of the Woman's Liberation",
"The Psychotherapist as Moralist", "The Freedom to Die",
"Sex and Ethical Methodology", "The New Look of Death" and
"Affirmative Action at Bay".
Of his many ... honors ... he was listed by Ms. Magazine
as one of the "40 male heroes of the past decade, men who
took chances and made a difference", 1982. His book, The
Moral Choice, won "Best Scholarly Book of the Year, 1978.
The University of Notre Dame named Maguire one of the ten
best teachers, 1983-1984.
His published books include: Moral Absolutes and the
Magisterium, 1970; The Moral Choice, 1975;
A New American Justice: Ending the White Male Monopolies,
1980; The New Subversives: Anti-Americanism of the Religious
Right, 1982; The Moral Revolution, 1986;
On Moral Grounds: The Art/Science of Ethics, 1991;
The Moral Core of Judaism and Christianity, 1993;
Sacred Energies, 2000; What Men Owe Women,
2000; Sacred Choices, 2001; and Sacred Rights,
Clearly, as an ethicist
and preeminent moral theologian, "Dan" has much to teach the young Catholic
entrusted by the Church to his tutelage ... once, that is, the student
is sufficiently adept at discerning that he is lecturing on ethics and
not being gratuitously salacious. To wit, consider the following:
(Father) Daniel Maguire's Memorable address to:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
2002 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
INTERFAITH PRAYER BREAKFAST
MARCH 21, 2001
is what sex is all about. Historic philosophy invaded western
culture with the idea that sexual pleasure is presumed guilty
until proven innocent. Only procreative intent could bring
acquittal. Such nonsense. Sex rarely has anything to do
with procreation. The old axiom listen to your body was
misapplied here. We listened much too much to the penis
when we should have sought an audience with the clitoris.
The penis has divided loyalties and multiple missions. It
is concerned with procreation and waste removal. The clitoris
is single-minded. Its one goal, as Susan Ross, the ethicist
says, is exquisite sexual pleasure." 2
scholars outside of the Catholic Church, have not simply the propensity
to discuss ethical issues with vulvae, but to seek an audience with,
and hope to elicit an answer from, inter-labial anatomical features?
And anticipate being enlightened? That is a rare gift. An audience with
the Pope? Out of the question. He would not listen. With a clitoris?
A distinct possibility ... even if he is the only one who hears it speaking.
An exemplary Catholic scholar, to be sure ... despite the absence of
any consonance between "Dan's" teaching, and the authentic teaching
of the Catholic Church at a Catholic Jesuit University. Is something
Who pays "Dan" handsomely (not) to teach "Moral Theological Catholic
Ethics"? The Catholic Jesuit Marquette University. Who pays the university
that pays Dan? Where do the students get their tuition to pay the university
to pay Dan? From their parents. Are their parents Catholic? Largely.
Was it their expectation that by sending their son or daughter to a
Catholic University that their children would receive a genuine "Catholic"
education? Presumably. Was someone sold a bill of goods? I think so.
Who have you been listening to lately ...?
Well, we have a pretty clear take on "what" not "Who" Dan has been
listening to lately, and even if we do not hear what Dan hears from
his own ... well, private, sources, he is ready to proclaim it to the
world ... and who is listening, besides his unfortunate students? Not
the bishops! They are, by the latest polls, apparently too busy listening
for the liveliest pulse ... and thither they go! Or to the most correctly
and popularly nuanced political agenda likely to increase the numbers
despite the cost. "Mandatum? What Mandatum? Oh ...
that Mandatum.! Yes, we'll have to look into it seriously ...
Have you been defrauded? Have you been sold a bill
of goods? Did you get what you paid for? Did you get who
you pay for? Who broke faith? The "Catholic" University? The bishop?
Dan of the sub-Sybilline gifts?
... all three:
profit, one for power, and one for prestige.
alas ... no one stood with Christ.
Sounds like a viable class-action suit to me.
it a fixation with genitalia that brought the Church in Boston to this
sad state to begin with? Or are the two somehow related?
on Who and what you're listening to.
Printable PDF Version
for the Boston Catholic Journal