November 30, 2023
There are theological implications of the abuse crisis that can’t be ignored. It is so devastating precisely because the Roman Catholic Church teaches that priest represent Christ. Priests acquire an “indelible mark” at ordination. Priests are “ontologically superior”, and bishops even more so. Bishops can “take the place of Christ himself”. (CCC 1555-1556, CCC 1581) When so many bishops and at least several popes have worked hard to cover up and enable abuse, it can feel like Jesus himself is doing this. This is why so many abuse victims have such severe betrayal trauma.
This is not just an obscure theological teaching, either. Within Catholic culture, God and the priesthood are conflated in astonishing and disturbing ways. This attitude amongst Catholics is one of the things that makes it impossible for victims to continue attending Catholic Churches. Their abusers and their abusers cover-uppers often have the status of rock stars. (Many churches have icons of John Paul II despite his involvement in ignoring (and therefore enabling) sex abuse. See here.)
However there are solid theological ways out of this situation, too. Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” Matthew 7:16. We can have confidence in our own abilities to look at a situation and discern if it has produced good or bad fruit. We can look at the actions of numerous Roman Catholic clerics and see that they are morally repugnant. It is plain to see for all who are willing to look.
So we find ourselves with two conflicting teachings. One elevates our clergy to the position of Christ. The other teaching is Jesus telling us we need to be wary of leaders who are like wolves in sheep clothing.
Clearly there is a conflict. How can we make a choice between these two teachings? If these two were of equal standing and importance, we could not judge. Our only choice would be to simply stop thinking about the contradiction and pretend it doesn’t exist. Indeed, this is the choice of many Catholics.
However it is not reasonable to think that both of these teachings are of equal standing.
Many Catholics would be surprised to find that the Orthodox churches do not necessarily share the Latin (Roman Catholic) interpretation of the indelible mark of the priesthood. They do not believe there is such a separation or that priests can simply be “free-floating” ontologically superior beings separated from their communities as so many Roman Catholic clerics are today. Consider what was written by the theologian Constantine Souteris in “Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity, Some Theological and Canonical Considerations” in the Biblioteca Theologica. Professor Souteris wrote:
“The doctrine of the “indelible mark” attained at ordination to the priesthood seems to have originated in the Scholastic period of the Western Church….The logical conclusion of the “indelible mark” is that the ordained individual possesses forever this peculiar mark of priesthood which can never be removed by anyone nor can it be surrendered in any circumstance. It is evident that such a doctrinal consideration absolutizes and isolates priesthood from the event itself of the ecclesial communion. Priesthood here is distortingly objectified and over-estimated assuming a totalitarian magnitude. It is imposed over the Church which is unable to deprive the ordained individual of its characteristic mark, even if he is unworthy to maintain the ecclesial grace. In fact this doctrine concerning the indelible mark divorces the priesthood from its organic context of the ecclesial life. Thus the ordained person possess a self sufficient power which is higher than the Church itself. And the Church is not able to take back the indelible mark from an individual even if he is defrocked and excommunicated.”
The scholastic period began roughly in the eleventh century. The main thrust was to create a synthesis between Aristotelian philosophy and Christianity. Among other things, Greek philosophy was applied to aspects of Christianity. There was a strong emphasis on the use of reason and logic. (See here.)
In contrast, we have sayings of Jesus in the Book of Matthew. It is true that what we read in an English Bible is not an exact translation. Jesus spoke Aramaic and understood Hebrew, the language of religious scholars. Tradition suggests that Matthew may have been written in Hebrew. However it is also not unlikely that it was written in koine Greek. From the start, then, the sayings of Jesus in this Gospel may have been translations.
Regardless, the contents of the Gospel of Matthew are far earlier and more fundamental than Scholastic era teachings concerning the priesthood. If there is a conflict, we should side with that which is more fundamental. We need to rethink the extent to which we elevate the priesthood. We need to deeply consider aspects of our culture which equate priests, and bishops, with God. We must not let clerics abrogate our duty to follow the teachings of Christ Jesus himself.
In practice we already prioritize the more fundamental teachings of our faith at the expense of other, newer, and less fundamental teachings. We interpret the younger teachings in light of the older ones. In many situations we already acknowledge that pastoral issues are not secondary to obscure or extreme theological interpretations that originated long after Christ.
Take the teaching of “integralism”. (Here is an interesting read on integralism in American today.) Most realize that the unification or integration of religious and civil power has the potential to take us back to the Middle Ages. Most realize it is only the civil justice system that is protecting us from power hungry Roman Catholic clerics at all. And so…we ignore it. Virtually everyone ignores it except arm-chair politicians with victim complexes who seem to think Catholics are oppressed. (American Catholics fill many high positions in our government. Our president and six of our nine supreme court justices are Catholic. Surely we are not that oppressed.)
The interpretation of another teaching sheds light on this current issue at hand. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we learn that at baptism people also receive an “indelible mark”. (CCC 1272). This mark means that the person belongs to Christ. But what about people not sealed with this mark? Indeed, there was a point in our history when many people believed that if an unbaptized baby died, it would go straight to hell.
When I was living in the UK I visited Stroud, England. Some of my ancestors came from there. I saw that there were two churches very close together. One was on top of a hill and the other at the bottom. I asked why there were two churches so close. The reason is that women living at the bottom of the hill would give birth. Some of these babies would die before their parents could bring them up to the church on the top of the hill to get baptized, especially in the middle of winter. At that time it was not recognized that a non-priest could baptize even in emergencies. The families at the bottom of the hill wanted easier access to baptism so their dying babies would go to heaven. So they built another church at the bottom of the hill.
Despite being heavily debated over the centuries, the belief that an innocent baby could be condemned to hell has fallen by the wayside due to the fact that it is so cruel and ridiculous. (This is my “theological” assessment.) However, just as in the case of integralism, there are still a few theological sticklers who do believe this, that our almighty and loving God and Creator would damn an innocent child to hell. (I met a seminarian studying theology in Oxford in 2007 who was of this opinion. Also read this blog post to see the kind of reasoning used in this belief.)
Just like with integralism and baptism, we must subordinate the relatively recent theological interpretations of the priesthood to the words of Christ. We must deeply consider how our interpretations of the priesthood perpetuate a culture of abuse and enhance the damage done to victims. Clearly, it is best not to think of the numerous bishops who enabled thousands of children to be raped as ontologically superior representatives of Christ.
“By their fruits you shall know them.”