Benedict and the Scandal (Mark Shea comments on Rod Dreher remarks)

Now that Benedict has come and gone we are in the thick of media analysis of the meaning of it all. Many folk (Rod Dreher is a notable example) were (as I expected) disappointed because the pope didn't "do something" about bishops who have, to say the least, not particularly distinguished themselves in the Scandal. Dreher wanted a "read them the riot act" moment. Others scattered around the secular and mainstream media talked about Benedict "firing" them and so forth.

The pope, as you might expect, addressed the bishops and (as you also might expect given his high degree of commitment to dialog with any person of good will or even not-so-good will) his talk wound up being a mixture of his thoughts and attempts to engage the often dim-witted drivel of the USCCB functionaries upon whom he depends for information about what's going on in the USCCB. But though he made clear that sometimes sexual abuse cases had been very badly handled by our bishops, there was no Riot Act Reading. Compounding this, for Dreher, was the reaction of our dim-witted functionaries, which was predictably less-than-stellar (not to say vaguely nauseating). Dreher mentioned Bishop Tod Brown, who offered the usual disingenuous smarm that he learned from his master, the even more egregious and untrustworthy Cardinal Mahony. Both Brown and Mahony are textbook examples of just about everything that is wrong with the USCCB's response to the crisis of sexual abuse in the Church. All this bugs Dreher and he expresses his disappointment with Benedict (though, to be fair, he was also very delighted to see Benedict meet with abuse victims and gave him his due).

The thing is, I'm not sure what Dreher and many others think should have happened between Benedict and the bishops. But then I haven't thought Dreher has had a realistic grasp of the options the pope has in this matter since the beginning. Dreher began his quarrel with the papacy on this matter when, as he famously said, the pope "let us down" by not dismissing a bunch of bishops "with the stroke of a pen." Life for Dreher since then has constituted the never-ending encounter with the fact that this entire perception of what the pope could or would do was wholly unrealistic.

As I've argued repeatedly, anybody who has read and internalized Ut Unum Sint could not be surprised when the pope with the most Eastern conception of the papacy in a thousand years did not regard it as his role to micromanage the American Church. Likewise, John Paul II's successor, Benedict, for all his fury at the Scandal (and it is real fury, not feigned for the cameras) is also constrained by the fact that, at the end of the day, he is bound to his commitment to regard himself as first among equals, not as The Guy Ordained by God to Tell All the Other Bishops to Obey Him or Hit The Road. His mission is to strengthen the brethren, not lay about him with mace and cudgel. Both his office and his personality are wholly arrayed against this highly American desire to "fix" everything with a cathartic gust of rage.

Moreover, the crowning paradox of Dreher's position is that, having left the Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy in large part because of the Scandal, he is now in communion with bishops who would take it very ill if the pope were to do what Dreher so much wants him to do. It's one of the most puzzling aspects of Dreher's position and I hope that one of these days he will articulate how he can simultaneously hold an Orthodox ecclesiology and still want Benedict (or any pope) to act like Innocent III. I honestly don't get it.

Meanwhile, from where I sit it seems we are left with this:

As far as I can tell, we are demanding that the one person in the world whose job, more than any other, is to proclaim the mercy of God do our job for us by administering some sort of vague but severe punishment for something we will not, ourselves, punish (and which we in many cases celebrate: namely a laissez-faire attitude toward our sex lives, including the sex lives of our kids).

Now I'm all for jailing bishops who have committed crimes. But, see, that's our job as laypeople and we have basically decided we can't or won't do that. I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea of the legal guilt of this or that bishop. But I do know something about the Gospel and it seems to me that if we laypeople don't think we have a case against the bishops beyond their being dumb, shady, slick, and/or disingenuous in the handling of serial perverts, then I don't see how it is the pope's task to be more merciless than we are.

The American Church has made great strides in making parishes places of almost paranoid safety for kids since 2002. This is but one of the prices we pay for the wretchedness of the episcopal response to the Scandal. Some of the Zero Tolerance idiocy is a heavy cross to bear for all the normal people who have to go through endless training and scrutiny because bishops did not have the sense God gave a goose when some serial pervert was reassigned to a fresh field of victims multiple times by these numbskulls. Now the bishops overcompensate by treating everybody as a serial pervert. That's exasperating, but it does give the lie to the notion that "nothing has been done." Plenty has been done and I, as a layman, have not a worry in the world about the safety of my children in the Church.

But that's not what people now mean by the phrase "nothing has been done." What they mean is that they do not have the sense that sufficient vengeance has been wreaked on bishops. Well, if there is legal vengeance to be wreaked, that's up to us laypeople, innit? But we have not done so, apparently because we don't have a case. So we hope that Benedict will do something or other to wreak that vengeance for us and we take it out on him for not doing our job. I think that's kinda crazy. I don't want a Church that is all about vengeance. I much prefer a Church that is about mercy.

he is bound to his commitment to regard himself as first among equals, not as The Guy Ordained by God to Tell All the Other Bishops to Obey Him or Hit The Road.

Both of these positions are extreme. While the pope is more than just the first among equals, he is not a tyrant. His position is that of a final court of appeal, not a micromanager lording over those under him. The exercise of any papal jurisdiction is tempered by the concept of subsidiarity: the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. Additionally, there is nothing in the writings of Benedict to suggest that he has retreated from papal claims of authority to embrace the Orthodox position of first among equals.

As to the question of the power of the pope to remove bishops, yes, he does have that authority. It is however very rare that it is exercised (in keeping with the above mentioned subsidiarity and also recognizing the gravity of removing a bishop from office). Nor is this authority of recent vintage; it was exercised in the ancient church. I will pass over the examples where the popes removed bishops in the West and just point out some examples where they exercised this authority over those of the East:

Pope Damasus I responded that he had already deposed Timothy when he was petitioned to do so by the bishops in the East

St. Athanasius thanked Damasus for the disposition of Ursacius and Valens and urged him to despose Auxentius of Milan

At the Council of Chalcedon the papal legates invoked the authority of the pope to declare the deposition of Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria

Sixtus III deposed Polychronius of Jerusalem

Simplicius deposed and excommunicated Peter Mongus, Patriarch of Alexandria

Felix II deposed Peter Cnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch; Timothy, Patriarch of Alexandria; and the bishops Peter, Paul and John. These acts were executed by none other than Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Acacius himself would latter be excommunicated by Felix. Although long resisted by Acacius and the bishops in the East, this act was finally and formally recognized by John, Patriarch of Constantinople and the bishops in the East in 519.

Anthimus I deposed Agapetus I, Patriarch of Constantinople despite the later's support by the Emperor Justinian.

If these do not represent the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the undivided church, I do not know what would.

More recently, Pope John Paul II removed Jacques Gaillot as Bishop of Évreux.

will pass over the examples where the popes removed bishops in the West and just point out some examples where they exercised this authority over those of the East...Anthimus I deposed Agapetus I, Patriarch of Constantinople despite the later's support by the Emperor Justinian.

My sources show that Anthimus I was the Monophysite Bishop of Constantinople, not a Pope.

Wasn't Felix II the antipope?

All these examples are concerning Monophyste or Miaphysite bishops (i.e. bishops who professed faith other than the faith porfessed by the Church, as established by the Council of Chalcedon).

The authority to excommunicate them comes from the Council (Synod) itself, and the Pope is merely the executor of that authority, which in this case was binding to the whole Church and does not represent specifically any papal power above and beyond any other bishop or patriarch. It merely reflects the authority given him by the Council.

In 1054, which you don't mention, the Pope (who was already dead) excommunicated (through a legate without authority) the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the Ecumenical Patriarch, in turn, excommunicated the Pope. Obviously, the "authority" was there. Whether anyone abided by these decisions was a matter of real power on hand.

To this very day, bishops excommunicate other bishops. This merely means they are no longer in their dyptichs as they are either in canonical breach or are teaching a different faith.

My sources show that Anthimus I was the Monophysite Bishop of Constantinople, not a Pope.

Sorry, that should have been Pope Agapetus I deposed Patriarch Anthimus I.

Wasn't Felix II the antipope?

Not my best day! That should have been Pope Felix III.

All these examples are concerning Monophyste or Miaphysite bishops (i.e. bishops who professed faith other than the faith porfessed by the Church, as established by the Council of Chalcedon).

Yes, indeed! The power of the pope to remove a bishop from office is not exercised for trivial reasons. I sense a fear on the part of the Orthodox that to acknowledge any papal jurisdiction is to run the risk that the pope will run rough-shot over the other bishops. There may have been exceptions but historically this has not been the case. Even in the West this power has been used very sparingly, and only for the gravest of reasons.

Here we get to the heart of the problem. While this may be an interesting theory, and surely reflects later Orthodox thinking, the historical facts do not support it. In none of the cases mentioned does the pope rely on any prior authorization from a council. He operates on his own authority. In the case of Pope Damasus I, he was petitioned by the Eastern bishops and responded that he had already taken action:

Most honoured children, in that your friendliness bestows on the Apostolic Chair the reverence due, you confer the greatest honour upon yourselves. For although especially in this holy Church wherein the holy Apostle sitting taught in what way it beseems us to hold the key which has been put into our hands, yet do we confess ourselves unequal to the honour; but therefore do we strive in every way, if it may be that we may be able to attain unto the glory of that blessedness. Know, therefore, that long since we deposed the profane Timotheus, the disciple of the heretic Apollinarius, with his impious doctrine… Why then, do you again require from me the deposition of the same man, who even here by the Judgment of the Apostolic Chair, while Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, was also present, was deposed together with his master Apollinarius?

Later he was petitioned individually by St. Athanasius to depose Auxentius of Milan. No authority or delegation of any council was invoked. At Chalcedon the papal legates specifically invoked papal authority, and not that of the council, to declare that Dioscorus was deposed:

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

Notice that it is Pope Leo working through the council and not the council working through Leo by which they declare Dioscorus deposed. In deposing Peter Cnapheus of Antioch, Pope Felix III writes:

Having written two letters to you, I now proceed to pass sentence against you: yea, rather, he [sentences you] who is head of all pastoral sees, the glorious Peter, truly the greatest of the apostles.

Against Acacius he writes:

Being separated from the honor of the priesthood, and from the Catholic communion, and likewise from the number of the faithful, know that the name of and office of priestly ministry is taken from you, being condemned by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and by apostolic authority.

Prior to his own condemnation, Acacius recognized and was an agent of this papal authority. Thus Pope Gelasius writes to Euphemus, Patriarch of Constantinople:

Timothy of Alexandria, and Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul and John, and others, not one only, but several bearing the priestly title, were cast down by the sole authority of the Apostolic See. Of this fact Acacius himself is witness, since he was charged with the execution of the sentence.

This was formally recognized by John, Patriarch of Constantinople and the bishops in the East in 519. Again, Pope Agapetus I acted on his own authority, not that of a council, when he deposed Anthimus I from the see of Constantinople in 536.

Prior to Acacius there was no dispute that the pope had indeed this authority. From this time the Eastern bishops would vacillate over the question. From the beginning the Western bishops were unanimous and constant in accepting this authority. Prior 1054, there was an undivided church when the Eastern bishops agreed and a divided church when they dissented. It is the teaching of the Eastern church, not that of the West, that has changed over this question. If we are to return to the teaching of the undivided church, how can we not recognize the authority of the pope?

I will have to be quick because tomorrow is our Great and Holy Paschal Sunday and I will not be writing much until possibly tomorrow evening.

I will also address your other informative post rearding divine liturgy and its historical development after tomorrow. I didn't forget, it's just that we were buys during the Holy Week.

I sense a fear on the part of the Orthodox that to acknowledge any papal jurisdiction is to run the risk that the pope will run rough-shot over the other bishops

Not fear, Petroisius, just a difference of opinion.

Here we get to the heart of the problem. While this may be an interesting theory, and surely reflects later Orthodox thinking, the historical facts do not support it

We say the same thing about the Latin side. It's not that simple. I am hoping that we (meaning our particular Churches) learn a lesson in humility and discover that we were both a little right and and a little wrong. I think that would really do a great deal at bringing us one step closer, maybe even two. :)

In none of the cases mentioned does the pope rely on any prior authorization from a council

I would have to read more about this, especially the circumstances that led to this decision, but Pope Damasus I (actually, it was his successor, Siricus I who, in 399, used the title "Papa" for the first time; Damasus' official title was Episcopus Romanus) apparently moved against Arian churches which were in clear condemnation (anathema) by the first extant Ecumenical Councils.

Later he was petitioned individually by St. Athanasius to depose Auxentius of Milan. No authority or delegation of any council was invoked.

Milan was part of his Patriarchate. As the Patriarch of the West, the Bisbop of Rome exercised his authority in an absolutist sense in his Patriarchate. This was not the case in the East or in the Church as a whole.

Pope Damasus I also benefitted from a favorably disposed Emperor. The Bishops at the Council of Chalcedon (almost a century after Damasus I) made it very clear that it was them, the bishops, who granted privilege to the Bishop of elder Rome based on the dignity of the imperial capital and were granting the same priviklege, but honor seocnd to that of the Pope of Rome, to the Bishop of Constantinople, a New Rome and a new seat of imperial dignity.

Clearly, the whole Church did not follow the theory, which we could say came at a later date, that the pope had "full aposotlic authority" love rother bishops granted him by our Lord Jesus Christ. +Peter had no authority of any kind over other Apostles.

If +Peter enjoyed respect, it was based on not on any canon but on his holiness. And, in many respects, the current Pope enjoys the same kind of respect from the Orthodox side for the very same reason.

You must also remember that there are many Popes who are also venerated as Orthodox Saints, Leo I being one of them, regardless of the fact that the East disagreed with his papal supremacy theory.

Notice that it is Pope Leo working through the council and not the council working through Leo by which they declare Dioscorus deposed

He was the presiding bishop, even though he was represented by his legates. He speaks for the Council. Te turn of events at that Council late on shows that the Pope was not who he personally claimed he was, namely the "ruler of the church."

You keep mentioning Felix III. This POpe caused an almost 40-year East-West schism, where the two "lungs" were not in communion with each other, by exercising his self-styled authority over other Patriarchs!

If such patriarchs were hefretics, then he had every right and duty to act against them, by the authority of the whole Chruch which anathematized such heretics. As the presiding bishop it was up to him to pronounce the anathems.

Not only was the pope most prominent bishop of the Church, but it must have been the Holy Spirit who preserved the popes of Rome from falling to heresy (Honrius I not counted here, as it was not his heresy but the heresy of others that he failed to eradicate and instead allowed ti fester), when all the Patriarchs, especially those of Consbtantinople, had a knack for such deviations.

It was natural for the orthodox bishops to flock to the Pope (i.e. +Maxomos the Confessor, +Joh Chrysostomos, etc.) when they were faced with heresies at home and even as high up as the emperor's throne and the patriarch of Constantinople.

<Again, Pope Agapetus I acted on his own authority, not that of a council, when he deposed Anthimus I from the see of Constantinople in 536.

Any bishop can excommunicate any othe rbishbop. Whether the rest of the Church follows is a different story. BUt rest assured that if the Ecumneical Patriarch refuses to recognize some johnny-come-lately "Orthodox" Church, the rest of the Syod will follow in his steps. This doesn't mean that he can do this on a whim, bypassing the Synod, just as the Synod cannot by bypassing the EP, or the Pope for that matter.

This is not some special privilege granted to pope; his decisions were accepted by the orthodox bishops and rejected by the heretical ones. His authority is not innate. It was given by the Councils.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.