BISHOPS: EXAMPLES FOR
THE FAITHFUL

by Gerard V. Bradley

Conservative Catholics (like me) commonly wonder whether we have enough bishops who are willing to “bish”; that is, simply to do the things that bishops ought to do. Especially the things that only bishops can do, like the training, ordination, assignment, and disciplining of priests. And, if the bishop is an Ordinary, speak for the Church of that particular place. And many other things, too.

The concept behind this lament is easy to grasp. Every vocation, apostolate or job has distinctive duties, even if they involve the duty of governing without answering to higher earthly authority. To these duties correspond qualities of mind, heart and character. Some people in positions of (virtually) unreviewable authority get sloppy and lazy. They may be addled by rationalizations for their dereliction. They may convince themselves that the job is what they say it is, or what they are willing to do. Not so. In fact, it is much more important that persons “in charge” be fit, and willing, to do what the job requires. No one will make them do more than they are inclined to do. There are no monthly performance reviews. A bishop who does not want to “bish” is a bishop who doesn’t.

No doubt many conservative Catholics jump to conclusions about bishops’ performance in office, and arraign them for offenses which are not. Many episcopal actions — and, more often, inactions — seem to reflect a lack of resolve. Or a lack of fidelity to the Holy Father. Or, occasionally, they are heterodox. Maybe so. But we cannot say for sure. Where actions (and inactions) are ambiguous, or where they involve the prudential judgment of a bishop, we are obliged to give our pastors the benefit of the doubt. All too often, we do not. And many times the conservative Catholic critic is simply wrong: the bishop’s conduct is entirely right, but the critic does not understand that. Again, shame on the critic.

Identifying bishops who don’t “bish” is, however, not always guesswork or mischievous opining. Not nearly. The universal law of the Church — the 1983 Code of Canon Law — imposes a great number of duties upon bishops. Many of these duties require little interpretation. They are easy to use as a measure or standard of a bishop’s performance. Sometimes, too, authoritative Church documents impose duties upon bishops, often with regard to the conduct of the liturgy. And orthodoxy itself is a measure of a bishop’s performance. No bishop, or even all of them united in a national conference, can alter the fact that a particular sexual act is always morally wrong, even if some bishops and priests and lots of laypeople wish it were not.

Some good friends say that we should never publicly criticize a bishop. I disagree. We should, it is true, never scandalize the faithful. Quite often, that norm will preclude criticism of a bishop, at least with regard to certain audiences. But I deny that there is a moral or disciplinary norm to the effect: bishops should never be publicly criticized.

These friends make the good point that it can be perilous to one’s own spiritual life to criticize bishops or, more exactly, to be the type of person who critically evaluates the performance of those to whom, it is also true, we owe a duty of obedience. Yes, but these days it can be almost as dangerous not to be that type of person. At least in certain dioceses. And I deny that none of us can adopt a critical attitude towards bishops, and still make our way towards heaven. Some people may be so constituted that they should be advised by their director to be inveterately docile. But all of us? No.

The docility recommended by my friends is also, given the times in which we live, empirically unavailable. By that I mean that one can scarcely be plugged into Catholic publications and list servers without meeting criticism of bishops — by other bishops! Yes, these criticisms are usually gentle in tone and irenic in spirit. But only a knucklehead could fail to see that the Holy Father (and the Holy Office) have been woodshedding bishops on a regular basis lately — whether it is the German bishops for their complicity in abortion certification, or English-speaking bishops for watering down liturgical texts, or the American bishops for being weak-kneed on Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Behind the diplomatic-speak of the documents, one cannot fail to see sharp rebukes.

Almost anyone could see, to cite another example, that the bishops’ document for parents of chldren with same-sex attractions — Always Our Children — was both pastorally and morally disastrous. For those who could not, the Vatican’s rebuke was clear enough, as was the courageous, but blunt, criticism of Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska. 

What does docility require of the believer in all these instances?

I should like to close with the suggestion that it might be spiritually disastrous to be as docile as my conservative friends say I should be. I am the father of eight children and husband of Pamela Vivolo Bradley. Lord knows I am far from being a perfect father or an ideal spouse. I fail often, and almost as often I am tempted to rationalize my failures. I am tired, and overworked, and the kids are often ungrateful, and being firm and fair to them means that they don’t like me much some days. Keeping the family, and me, on track is not a pleasant duty. It is so hard to practice marital chastity, and we are not reminded of it at Mass, or even in Confession. (For the record, whenever I confess to a priest who is not a member of Opus Dei, I am told by the confessor to be easier on myself. I solemnly assure you that I am not over-scrupulous.) Is it so clear that we really have to believe all that we read and hear in the gospel, and in Church documents?

At these moments, when I am tempted to redefine my duties to suit my inclinations (and to be more popular and much appreciated), it occurs to me: does it help to consider my (and your) bishop’s example? Is his steadfastness, and courage, and fidelity to the Successor of Peter — his faithfulness — going to get you to heaven? We all, each and every one of us, have a specific vocation, a share in Kingdom-building allotted to us by God, and held (we might imagine) in his mind from all eternity. Some persons’ vocation is to marriage, others to Holy Orders, others to a consecrated lay life. But all are duty-bound to seek out that calling, and cleave to it, in season and out. In this, we are all equal, all the same.

If a bishop is not a model of fidelity to vocation, he is nothing for his people.

Gerard V. Bradley is professor of law at the University of Notre Dame and a regular columnist for Catholic Dossier.

Back to Catholic Dossier May/June 2001 Table of Contents

Back to Catholic Information Center's Periodicals