Mr. Donohue, Stand Your Ground!

Michael J. Gaynor says, "MR. DONOHUE, MEET MR. BALESTRIERI AND SUPPORT HIM!" here.

I appreciate Mr. Gaynor's motivation. I share his outrage at the abuse of the Eucharist that too many American Bishops appear to endure for the sake of the appearance of "unity" or even civility at the communion rail (even if many Churches don't use one today!) However, Mr. Gaynor fails to understand that it's not the laity's job to supervise the Episopacy in matters of the sacraments. The Church has invested authority in these matters to the Bishops. If subsidiarity is to have any meaning for Catholics, the Catholics must begin applying it at home.

Morever, his call for Mr. Donohue to publically support Mr. Balestrieri and oppose the policy of many U.S. Bishops will not change the abuse that he wants to see ended. The MSM will not report that angle. No, the story will be that a prominent "conservative" Catholic has turned on the Bishops and Church that he and his "right-wing" organization have once championed. Mr. Donohue will be seen as a hypocrite at best and a turncoat at worst. Bishops that may once have trusted the Catholic League will think twice about doing so again, even if the League has a legitimate concern on a future issue. In short, not only will Mr. Donohue's attempt to support Mr. Balestrieri backfire and hurt the Canon lawyer's cause; it will cause a scandal that further eclipses the Catholic Church's witness to the gospel in the U.S.

Mr. Gaynor makes his assessment of Mr. Donohue's need to support Mr. Balestrieri on an erroneous reading of A DECLARATION BY THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS:

The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts previously had issued an interpretation of Canon 915 in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It stated in unambiguous terms:

“Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.”

Responsibility for implementing Canon 915 was delegated to priests (not bishops):

“The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.”

And compliance with Canon 915 is mandatory, not discretionary.

“….the obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, being that it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord….”

In making this claim, however, Mr. Gaynor fails to consider the Canonical dimension of A parish priest. In short, he does not consider the relationship of a priest to his Ordinary; no priest may act out of communion with the Bishop to whom he answers. A priest's authority flows from this communion with his Ordinary:

Can. 519 The parish priest is the proper pastor of the parish entrusted to him. He exercises the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, whose ministry of Christ he is called to share, so that for this community he may carry out the offices of teaching, sanctifying and ruling with the cooperation of other priests or deacons and with the assistance of lay members of Christ's faithful, in accordance with the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can. 381 ß1 In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan Bishop has all the ordinary, proper and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office, except in those matters which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme or to some other ecclesiastical authority. Can. 391 ß1 The diocesan Bishop governs the particular Church entrusted to him with legislative, executive and judicial power, in accordance with the law.

ß2 The Bishop exercises legislative power himself. He exercises executive power either personally or through Vicars general or episcopal Vicars, in accordance with the law. He exercises judicial power either personally or through a judicial Vicar and judges, in accordance with the law.

Can. 392 ß1 Since the Bishop must defend the unity of the universal Church, he is bound to foster the discipline which is common to the whole Church, and so press for the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

ß2 He is to ensure that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially concerning the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the cult of the saints, and the administration of goods.

Likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the ecclesial reality of the hierarchy in Holy Orders:

1560 As Christ's vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: "Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."
---------------------------------
1567 "The priests, prudent cooperators of the episcopal college and its support and instrument, called to the service of the People of God, constitute, together with their bishop, a unique sacerdotal college (presbyterium) dedicated, it is, true to a variety of distinct duties. In each local assembly of the faithful they represent, in a certain sense, the bishop, with whom they are associated in all trust and generosity; in part they take upon themselves his duties and solicitude and in their daily toils discharge them."51 priests can exercise their ministry only in dependence on the bishop and in communion with him. The promise of obedience they make to the bishop at the moment of ordination and the kiss of peace from him at the end of the ordination liturgy mean that the bishop considers them his co-workers, his sons, his brothers and his friends, and that they in return owe him love and obedience.

Mr. Gaynor knows this. In this column he wrote for Catholic Online in June 21, 2004, he admits it; well, he admits insofar as the Bishops exercise their authority in communion with the Bishop of Rome:

On June 18, 2004, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared that decisions on giving or denying "Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life" "rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles." In support, they stated simply that "[b]ishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action."

The bishops do have individual authority to determine prudent pastoral action, but that does not absolve them of their sacred duty to uphold and to apply canon law and to follow the Pope. The authority of the bishops "must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope" (The Cathecism of the Catholic Church, Section 895). The bishops have "no authority unless united with the [Pope], Peter's successor, as its head" (Cathecism 883).

No one denies that the Bishops are to act in communion with the Pope of Rome. More than a few laity may believe that far too many American Bishops do not. Frankly, I have my own doubts as to how in communion certain Bishops are. However, Mr. Gaynor is proposing a solution to this problem that has no basis in either the teachings of the Church, Scripture and Tradition, or Canon Law. In effect, he wants prominent lay persons such as Mssr. Donohue and Balestrieri to form a "magisterium of the laity" that will put pressure on the Bishops to keep them in communion with the Pope.

This is a clear overstepping of roles within the Church. Like it or not, the laity do not possess the authority to govern. We can't offer fraternal correction to Episcopates because we do not belong to the Episcopal college. Christ willed his Church to be governed by his apostles and their successors. Like them or not, today's Bishops are those successors. They will be the ones that offer correction. If the Holy See determines that American Bishops have failed to enforce Canon 915 appropriately, then the Pope and the Curia are the ones responsible for correcting the erring Bishops. The Laity may appeal to the Prefects of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and Sacraments and Worship. They may appeal first to the Papal Nuncio for the United States. Ultimately, however, enforcement of Canon Law and Doctrine remain in the hands of the Episcopate and the Holy See.

Therefore, embarrassing the Bishops accomplishes nothing. If they're expected by the laity to seriously correct each others errors, they're less likely to do it this same laity expose them to public ridicule and shame. They'll circle the wagons and watch each other's backs until the heat dies down. Mr. Donohue has been around long enough, and understands the Faith well enough, to know this. For whatever reason, Mr. Gaynor does not accept this. Unfortunately, he's likely to reap the harvest of unintended consequences should prominent Catholic lay persons flock to his banner. What could he expect? He's advocating a breach of subsidiarity within the Body of Christ!

I'm not saying Mr. Gaynor is wrong for criticizing the Bishops. That's not the issue here. Mr. Gaynor advocates a course of action from a prominent lay person in order to achieve a specific end. He believes his desired course of action rests on sound moral, canonical and catechetical principles. He may hold the moral high ground. He definately lacks the canonical and catechetical foundation. Morever, his approach will run aground on human nature and the clear ecclesially dominant position that Bishops hold. Therefore his advocacy fails in all the ways such advocacy matters. Bottom line: his plan won't work. Abuse of the eucharist will not stop.

I say it again: Hold your ground, Mr. Donohue. You've done the right thing. Continue to do so!