Throughout my childhood, through adolescence, and into adulthood, I have often heard the saying, as I'm sure many others have that "what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right". If memory serves, I think I may have first heard (or read) it somewhere around second or third grade. I'm not sure if it actually resonated with me at that particular time, but it is certainly something I have considered a great deal in the time since. Now there may or may not be various ways of interpreting this saying, so far be it from me to state definitively what the author intended. However what I myself have taken it to mean is this: there will most assuredly be times in life where it is necessary, perhaps even obligatory, to "do the right thing"; to speak out against injustice even when no one else is willing or able, to hold straight the moral compass even though it be completely disregarded by all others and, if necessary, offer peaceful admonishment or exhortation to those who would do so. The caveat to such a course is that it almost presupposes (particularly in these strange days) an immediate backlash by the majority. Yet this cannot be allowed to be the determining factor in choosing how to act in a given situation.
The other part of the saying suggests, to me, that oftentimes what is seen as fashionable or stylish is in no way justified simply on account of its popularity by the masses. Indeed, in such situations those willing to go against the proverbial grain are sometimes saddled with a litany of accusations. Many times these arise from the belief of some in the validity of being supposedly "progressive". To buck such fashion therefore is to be nothing, if not "closed-minded"; perhaps even archaic, according to the proponents. This, at least, is what I myself have gleaned from the adage.
And I find myself considering it once again in lieu of an article in Time magazine that I read recently. Written by one Tim Padgett, it is entitled "Birth Control Debate: Why Catholic Bishops Have Lost Their Grip on U.S. Politics--and Their Flock". The article centers primarily on the current protest of U.S. bishops against the recent HHS mandate requiring institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities to include contraception in the health insurance coverage offered to their employees. Yet a sizable chunk of the article is devoted to once again wheeling out to center stage the Church abuse scandal, which first broke in 2002. Why this is always necessary anytime there is a clash between the Catholic Church and the American government escapes me. But in this particular article, if I understand Mr. Padgett correctly, it is apparently for the sake of demonstrating where, or perhaps why, a rift first formed between the Church and American Catholics.
That is apparently the point that Mr. Padgett is trying to make: "that the bishops no longer speak for most U.S. Catholics". There are however one or two small problems with such an assertion. The first is that to use a phrase such as "most Catholics" is to paint with an overly broad brush. If by most, it is meant the majority, then it is a slim one at best. Secondly, as concerns the current contraception debate, or the myriad of other issues Mr. Padgett lists (homosexuality, women priests, divorce, premarital sex, etc.), the bishops aren't speaking "for" U.S. Catholics; they're speaking to them. It is a call, as it has always been, for Catholics like Mr. Padgett to stand up and defend their faith instead of helping to erode it. As an example, my own local bishop, like many others across the country, addressed a letter to the diocese concerning the HHS mandate, to be read at Mass by the parish priests. In it, he asked to things of we, the laity. First and foremost was for prayer and fasting (which frankly I hope would be instinctive for any Catholic in a situation such as this). The second was for the faithful of the diocese to contact our representatives in Congress and urge them not to support the new legislation. The bishops have asked us to take action; not simply to observe some precept.
However, as Mr. Padgett unabashedly points out, a great many Catholics in the United States aren't particularly interested in what their bishops have to say anymore, on virtually any given topic. This is due at least in part to the false idea that it is perfectly acceptable for the laity to thumb their noses at their bishops and disregard Church teaching (and authority) when it inconveniences their lifestyle. The technical term for it is "Americanism", and it is a heresy rightly condemned by Pope Leo XIII in the papal encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. If only more Catholics in America, like Mr. Padgett were aware of such teachings. As it stands, and as noted in the Time article, in 2008 fifty-four percent of Catholics in America ignored their bishops and supported Barack Obama, a pro-choice presidential candidate. Additionally, one of the concluding paragraphs of the article points out, or rather sums up, one of the biggest and most dangerous problems in the Church in America:
Disregarding the authority of the bishops, Mr. Padgett, at least as concerns faith and morals, is by no means praiseworthy. On the contrary, I would tend to wonder what the point is in even bothering to call one's self Catholic; for as a fellow Catholic I am sure you must be familiar with the important role that Tradition plays in our faith. To that end, I would direct you to the Epistle of Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Church at Ephesus, circa A.D. 110, where he writes
I suppose it is somewhat fitting that I write this on the feast day of Saint Valentine, an early Christian martyr and the patron saint of love. Mr Padgett suggests at one point in his article that the Catholic Church and the Catholic religion are not the same thing. I suggest that he, and those Catholics who share his view on such matters, seriously ask themselves if they truly have any love for their faith. If so, then I would recommend that they consider ceasing from aiding outsiders in attempting to tear apart the Church. Or have they forgotten that it is the Church herself which has guarded and protected over the centuries, and passed on to them in its integrity that deposit of faith which they claim to cherish?
The other part of the saying suggests, to me, that oftentimes what is seen as fashionable or stylish is in no way justified simply on account of its popularity by the masses. Indeed, in such situations those willing to go against the proverbial grain are sometimes saddled with a litany of accusations. Many times these arise from the belief of some in the validity of being supposedly "progressive". To buck such fashion therefore is to be nothing, if not "closed-minded"; perhaps even archaic, according to the proponents. This, at least, is what I myself have gleaned from the adage.
And I find myself considering it once again in lieu of an article in Time magazine that I read recently. Written by one Tim Padgett, it is entitled "Birth Control Debate: Why Catholic Bishops Have Lost Their Grip on U.S. Politics--and Their Flock". The article centers primarily on the current protest of U.S. bishops against the recent HHS mandate requiring institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities to include contraception in the health insurance coverage offered to their employees. Yet a sizable chunk of the article is devoted to once again wheeling out to center stage the Church abuse scandal, which first broke in 2002. Why this is always necessary anytime there is a clash between the Catholic Church and the American government escapes me. But in this particular article, if I understand Mr. Padgett correctly, it is apparently for the sake of demonstrating where, or perhaps why, a rift first formed between the Church and American Catholics.
That is apparently the point that Mr. Padgett is trying to make: "that the bishops no longer speak for most U.S. Catholics". There are however one or two small problems with such an assertion. The first is that to use a phrase such as "most Catholics" is to paint with an overly broad brush. If by most, it is meant the majority, then it is a slim one at best. Secondly, as concerns the current contraception debate, or the myriad of other issues Mr. Padgett lists (homosexuality, women priests, divorce, premarital sex, etc.), the bishops aren't speaking "for" U.S. Catholics; they're speaking to them. It is a call, as it has always been, for Catholics like Mr. Padgett to stand up and defend their faith instead of helping to erode it. As an example, my own local bishop, like many others across the country, addressed a letter to the diocese concerning the HHS mandate, to be read at Mass by the parish priests. In it, he asked to things of we, the laity. First and foremost was for prayer and fasting (which frankly I hope would be instinctive for any Catholic in a situation such as this). The second was for the faithful of the diocese to contact our representatives in Congress and urge them not to support the new legislation. The bishops have asked us to take action; not simply to observe some precept.
However, as Mr. Padgett unabashedly points out, a great many Catholics in the United States aren't particularly interested in what their bishops have to say anymore, on virtually any given topic. This is due at least in part to the false idea that it is perfectly acceptable for the laity to thumb their noses at their bishops and disregard Church teaching (and authority) when it inconveniences their lifestyle. The technical term for it is "Americanism", and it is a heresy rightly condemned by Pope Leo XIII in the papal encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. If only more Catholics in America, like Mr. Padgett were aware of such teachings. As it stands, and as noted in the Time article, in 2008 fifty-four percent of Catholics in America ignored their bishops and supported Barack Obama, a pro-choice presidential candidate. Additionally, one of the concluding paragraphs of the article points out, or rather sums up, one of the biggest and most dangerous problems in the Church in America:
Stop equating what the bishops say with what we think, because we're not the obedient, monolithic bloc that newspapers and cable news networks so tiresomely insist is in "jeopardy" for this or that party whenever they smell church-state friction. When a hardlineRubio called it this month. For the vast majority of Catholics, it isn't.In short, I submit that Mr. Padgett and those he seems to wish to "champion" are cafeteria Catholics, accepting just enough Church doctrine to still use the name Catholic; but only those parts which do not interfere with the "free" lifestyle they choose to pursue. In fact it would seem, at least by appearance, that such individuals might have a little too much "American" in them, and not enough"Catholic".
Disregarding the authority of the bishops, Mr. Padgett, at least as concerns faith and morals, is by no means praiseworthy. On the contrary, I would tend to wonder what the point is in even bothering to call one's self Catholic; for as a fellow Catholic I am sure you must be familiar with the important role that Tradition plays in our faith. To that end, I would direct you to the Epistle of Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Church at Ephesus, circa A.D. 110, where he writes
Let us take care, therefore, not to oppose the bishop, that we may be submissive to God.Of course the abuse scandal has been terrible, no one denies that. Of course there have been mistakes made, and yes, all of it should be properly addressed and dealt with. Yet this does not in the least way justify the factional and schismatic mindset of individuals like Mr. Padgett. They would do well to remember the Profession of Faith recited during the Mass, which states,
I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.The ONE Church; not the one Church-plus-forty-million-dissenters. At the very least if one cannot seem to respect the individual bishop, at least show respect for his office; it is that which he has inherited from an Apostle (including the apostolic authority contained in the office).
I suppose it is somewhat fitting that I write this on the feast day of Saint Valentine, an early Christian martyr and the patron saint of love. Mr Padgett suggests at one point in his article that the Catholic Church and the Catholic religion are not the same thing. I suggest that he, and those Catholics who share his view on such matters, seriously ask themselves if they truly have any love for their faith. If so, then I would recommend that they consider ceasing from aiding outsiders in attempting to tear apart the Church. Or have they forgotten that it is the Church herself which has guarded and protected over the centuries, and passed on to them in its integrity that deposit of faith which they claim to cherish?
