Interview

An Answer to Dissenters

One American bishop has dared to warn that some angry Catholics are putting themselves outside the Church communion.

To attach the sanctions to the legislation was important because in my view legislation without sanctions is mere exhortation--it doesn’t really accomplish its purpose.

At its meeting in Chicago last November the national Call to Action undertook outrageous, even blasphemous activities that bordered on the grotesque.

I am flabbergasted at the amount of support I’ve received from the beginning.

"...if they’ve criticized me, they’ve done it in public and they’ve never had the courtesy to contact me directly.

* * * * *

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz: Yes, it was a long time coming, in the sense that matters had been brought to my attention, especially by priests but also by lay people. These matters were brought to my attention principally in the form of questions that indicate a longstanding confusion and ambiguity about the compatibility of membership in the Catholic faith and certain organizations.

Consequently, the matter was discussed by me over a long period of time with the presbyteral council and with other advisors who concurred with me, and in many ways suggested to me, some sort of legislation as an appropriate response to the problem of growing ambiguity and confusion. So that’s why this legislation was enacted.

There also was an incident that accelerated the enactment of the legislation, which was the formation of a local chapter of Call to Action, that went by the name of Call to Action Nebraska, that advertised itself rather extensively among Catholics and was lending itself once again to confusion.

In some instances it’s clear that there are principles in these organizations that are incompatible to the Catholic faith. In other instances they are organizations which are maybe not directly or immediately compatible to the Catholic faith but they do place one’s faith in danger if one is Catholic.

To attach the sanctions to the legislation was important because in my view legislation without sanctions is mere exhortation--it doesn’t really accomplish its purpose.

I also believe that the reaction on the part of a few dissenting people to the legislation indicates the necessity of the sanctions. If the sanctions weren’t there, they would simply dismiss this as one opinion against theirs and so on.

I might add too, I was overwhelmed by the support I received. All the priests of the Diocese of Lincoln are supportive of me, and I believe all the religious are as well. And the overwhelming majority of the 85,000 or more Catholics in the diocese are very supportive of the bishop in this regard.

I would also emphasize that the legislation is for the Diocese of Lincoln because I’m familiar with the pastoral situation there and have acted in accord with what I believe are my duties and responsibilities in regard to that pastoral situation. It wasn’t intended for others, although it evidently provoked a lot of discussion on the national and even international level. Perhaps providentially this was designed by God to happen. I certainly didn’t intend it to happen. I had no intention of being a national media figure.

Bruskewitz: All of the above. There’s no doubt that this legislation is intended as an act of pastoral charity and pastoral love. Charity, however, without truth is not charity. And love that doesn’t specify and clarify is not necessarily love; charity and kindness and gentleness are not necessarily the same as permissiveness or being indifferent to things that place people in danger.

This spiritual danger is very perilous to the purpose for which we exist, which is our eternal salvation. And as a result, certainly it’s my duty as a bishop to form consciences, to teach moral doctrine correctly, and I hope to the extent I am able to, I do that.

But it was didactic, certainly. there was a teaching purpose for this legislation. But its main purpose was to dissipate ambiguity and confusion that had arisen in a particular pastoral circumstance.

Bruskewitz: Previous to the legislation, there was an exchange of correspondence with some people who took the initiative and sent me a letter announcing that they were going to begin a chapter of Call to Action entitled Call to Action Nebraska. And they had circulated some information that they were going to hold a meeting in a state park located in the Diocese of Lincoln. And I replied, with kindness but also firmness, explaining that in my view Call to Action was inimical to the Catholic faith, an impediment to evangelization, and a direct contradiction to the Second Vatican Council.

Their Mass which they subsequently had at the state park, was perhaps blasphemous; it was certainly very illicit and completely out of order. In the course of this Mass they recited a creed which was totally incompatible with the Catholic faith, as well as completely different from any historic creed in the Catholic religion. The creed included words of disparagement of sarcasm in regard to Catholic beliefs, concluding for example by the words "I believe in the resurrection, whatever that means."

So we’re dealing with people who have an agenda. This group very clearly has an agenda.

[One of the Call to Action Nebraska organizers] gave an interview to the local paper in Omaha explaining the purposes of this chapter, which was to promote the ordination of women and to attack clerical celibacy...to oppose the doctrine of the Church in regard to artificial contraception and other moral teachings. I found it to be not exactly forthright--if not mendacious--that they would pose as simply those who are trying to establish dialogue about Catholic doctrines and practices. Actually it seemed to me they were doing something quite different.

Furthermore, this interview said very clearly that the local chapter was going to parallel the national Call to Action, which has a very clearly established agenda. It contradicts in many ways the Catholic faith. At its meeting in Chicago last November the national Call to Action undertook outrageous, even blasphemous activities that bordered on the grotesque. Matthew Fox: having dances by priestess-prostitutes and goddesses and other sorts of strange things--a Mass that was "concelebrated" with women dressed in vestments and pretending to be priests and the like.

There were things that were so out of order and so "New Age," and actually in many instances non-Christian, or post-Christian, that if any local chapter were to parallel the national organization, I wouldn’t permit anything like it in the Diocese of Lincoln. I would be seriously derelict in my duties if I didn’t react strongly and firmly to this group.

Bruskewitz: I don’t think it’s a group that’s compatible to the Catholic faith. It seems to have an agenda that is definitely outrageously anti-Catholic. It’s anti-clerical in its inspiration and its activities. I also think that Call to Action is participating in a referendum. They refuse to call it a petition. They seem to call it referendum, in which they’re going to attempt to have a million signatures to present to the Pope in opposition to Catholic doctrine and Catholic discipline. This kind of conduct is utterly reprehensible and not only places anyone’s Catholic faith in danger who participates in it, but actually is incompatible with that Catholic faith.

Bruskewitz: I think the canons were followed correctly. I have invited those who have fallen under the disciplinary aspects of this legislation to appeal, if they so choose, to the Holy See. And if I’m corrected in that regard, I’ll be glad to make whatever emendations or withdrawals or rescinding that would be required. On the other hand, I don’t feel at all that I did anything else except exercise my duty.

There are other canons as well. I might point to 391 and 392; 392 requires bishops to be vigilant and to enforce discipline in legislative ways, regarding for instance liturgical aberrations. And certainly Call to Action participates and did participate and continues to participate in what can only be called gross liturgical abuses.

Bruskewitz: There are many aspects to membership in the Catholic faith. To be a Catholic means to be joined to Christ; it means to be joined to him by baptism; it means to be joined to him in the fullness of Christian unity, which is accepting the Catholic faith in its totality, balance, integrity, and beauty. It means being drawn to the Catholic faith also in the worship that we give to God according to God’s will, which consists fundamentally in the Mass and sacraments as given to us by Christ. And it also means being joined to the faith and adhering to the constitutional government as set up by Christ to establish the Catholic Church.

I also believe that the final element of Christian unity is a submission--a religious submission of mind and will--to the pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, as #25 and 27 of Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, explains it.

Bruskewitz: The response has been overwhelmingly positive. I am flabbergasted at the amount of support I’ve received from the beginning. Organizations such as Women for Faith and Family, the St. Joseph Foundation, and others have been very supportive. Groups of Catholic lawyers and doctors and people from across the United States have written and faxed and telephoned their support.

I was also somewhat bewildered by the large number of Protestants who indicated very strong support and very cordial support for this legislation, and I was somewhat taken aback by the proportions.

I think at last sitting we had somewhere in the vicinity of 6,000 positive letters and about 200 negative letters. And a significant number of negative letters were, for example, obscene or crank or eccentric letters that normally you would discard anyway--unsigned, this sort of thing.

I really haven’t been overwhelmed by any negative response, and I might add that those negative letters which were to some extent thoughtful were in my view still exceptionally shallow and really did not address the issue.

Some of the letters that I received were divided. The Society of St. Pius X people from different parts of the country seemed to cheer me on in one aspect of legislation but not in another. As of now it appears that the St. Michael the Archangel chapel and the St. Pius X workings in the diocese ceased, which is probably the fruit of this legislation.

Bruskewitz: First of all these critics, if they’ve criticized me, they’ve done it in public and they’ve never had the courtesy to contact me directly.

Second, I would have great doubts about their knowing anything about the pastoral situation in Lincoln. I never heard of Father Rice visiting the Diocese of Lincoln, and certainly he’s made no inquiries in this direction at all. He may be offended because the priests in the Diocese of Lincoln aren’t affiliated with his organization, and I’m surprised he would comment on something about which he knows very little.

Father McBrien’s comments really are best left unanswered because I feel that they are really not worthy of response. They seem to be of a more hysterical, bombastic, "sound-bite" nature than a thoughtful reflection on the pastoral situation in the Diocese of Lincoln--about which, I might add, I don't think he knows anything.

I am a bishop trying to do my duty on the plains of Nebraska. I am not trying at all to argue with Father McBrien, Father Rice, or anybody else. Their ignorance about the situation in Nebraska already clouds and skews the objectivity of what they seem to be saying.

Bruskewitz: I haven’t had any direct communication form the Holy See about the legislation. I really don’t expect any, and if it were received it would be respectfully treated.

This isn’t anything on the international level. It’s a local situation.

I did invite one group of people, who raised the notion about appealing, to appeal to the Holy See. I’ll be very happy to submit in utter obedience to anything the Holy Father might tell me as the supreme bishop of the Church.

I feel however, not in the least bit defensive in that regard. I neither received anything positive or negative and I don’t expect to receive anything positive or negative. I don’t think the Holy See generally comments on, or issues statements in regard to, local ecclesiastical legislation.

Bruskewitz: All the private contacts I have had with the bishops have had with the bishops have been positive. I have not received a single comment from any bishop in a negative way.

However, I am certainly not going to mention bishops or talk about who they are, or what they said. They can talk for themselves. Several bishops have been kind enough to send me articles from newspapers or other things that they have culled. No bishop has contacted me directly with any criticism or anything negative.

Bruskewitz: I hope I’m simply a bishop who finds himself by the grace of God and favor of the Apostolic See, the bishop of the wonderful Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, where God has situated me.

And I hope with prayer and discernment and as much pastoral love and care and concern as I can muster, I am taking care of my duty to teach, sanctify and shepherd God’s people who are in that part of the world. I have no great pretensions to be anything more than that. I hope that I bring to whatever I do the heart of a parish priest. I am a diocesan priest by vocation and spent 12 years as a pastor of a wonderful suburban parish in Milwaukee and was extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to serve God’s people as a parish priest. Basically that’s who I am. I hope that I am God’s good servant.

Interviewer Roy Horner is a journalist on the staff of The Record, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Louisville.