Pascal
and the Jesuits
. There is a difference between the older
tolerance and patience with Catholic misbehavior, and the newer situation in
which an alternative – and quite militant – religion is growing under the
canopy of tolerance. That is why at The Catholic Thing we have always believed that the very
survival of the Church in the West depends on what Pope Benedict XVI has called
“creative minorities.” At the same time, we must not only maintain but grow
those minorities so that it becomes impossible even for the cynical politicians
to ignore us. I’ve said it before: there are at least 20 million Catholics in
America who agree with us. So far, only 30,000 subscribe to The Catholic Thing. But that means we have an unlimited future
ahead of us. If you wish to help shape that future – and have not already
contributed – what are you waiting for? We know that the immediate future is
going to be quite challenging for real Catholics. But what better time
to go on the offensive? The other side, as I’m convinced will soon be
clear, has no future. Now’s the time to bet on the future of Christ’s Church.
Help us help that future. Click the button to make your contribution to TCT.
Now. – Robert Royal
It seems to me (I’m hardly
alone) that many clerical leaders (priests and bishops) are relatively “soft”
on matters related to sexual sin – fornication, unmarried cohabitation,
abortion, and homosexuality. It’s not that they approve of these things; they just
don’t go out of their way to condemn them.
If someone were challenged to
write in defense of this clerical “softness,” I think the argument would go
like this.
At least since the time of
Emperor Constantine, the Church has realized that there are three main classes
of Christians.
Class 1: an elite minority of
“real” Christians: those who are deadly serious about their religion; who
believe all the official doctrines; who try hard (though never quite
succeeding) to obey all the commandments all the time; who spend much of their
time and energy at Mass and in prayer.
Class 2: those who are
“ordinary” Christians, the great majority of all Christians. They honestly
believe in their religion, but they are decidedly lukewarm. When it comes to
doctrine, their willingness to recite the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed
doesn’t imply that they agree with all the articles. And it certainly doesn’t
even imply that they understand all the articles; they don’t, and they are not
troubled by their lack of understanding.
As for the rules of Christian
morality, not only do they habitually violate many of them, except for the
really big ones – e.g., murder and adultery – they barely notice them. They
usually say prayers, especially in moments of trouble; and they attend Mass on
a fairly regular basis. They are for the most part “decent” people, and hope to
go to Heaven someday.
Class 3: this is made up of
ne’er-do-wells who habitually and conspicuously fall below the level of
ordinary decency. They are robbers, gangsters, prostitutes, drunks, drug
addicts, wife-beaters, etc. They rarely attend church. And except when they’re
standing before a judge waiting for him to pronounce sentence, they rarely
pray. Apart from the existence of God (who, they hope, will someday rescue them
from their sea of troubles), the dogmas of the religion mean little to them.
And occasionally, in their moments of despair, they doubt even God’s existence.
But they never sever their formal connection with the Church.
Members of this third class
aren’t a threat to the Church. They are even, in a perverse way, allies. For
one thing, they verify by their horrid examples what the Church teaches about
sin, that it will have bad consequences, both spiritual and temporal. For
another, they provide opportunities for Class 1 Catholics to show compassion to
the “least of these,” easing their pain, showing them the right path. Further,
they occasionally supply edifying examples of late-in-life conversions to
righteousness.
But Class 2 Catholics are
always a potential threat to the Church. For if the Church were to insist that
all Catholics must be of the Class 1 type, that all must strive for sainthood
on a daily and even hourly basis, most Class 2 (“ordinary” or “decent”)
Catholics would bid farewell. “I see this is not a religion for me,” they would
say. “It demands too much. It is unrealistic. It is fanatical. Au revoir.”
Duel After the Masquerade by Jean-Léon Gérôme, c. 1857 [Walters
Art Museum, Baltimore]
And so, to make sure these
folks, the great majority of Catholics, don’t leave the Church, thereby not
only damaging the religion but endangering their own salvation, the Church
loosens the reins on these people. If they don’t believe everything the Church
believes, oh well, let’s not make a fuss about it. And if they have
incorrigible habits of sin, well, let’s not make them feel uncomfortable by
publicly condemning the sins they’re prone to; and let’s tell them that God is
forgiving and tolerant; and let’s remind them that all sins can be
instantaneously wiped away in the confessional or on a good deathbed. Above
all, let’s tell them that, practically speaking, the goal of this life (except
for a rare few) is not Heaven but Purgatory; in other words, you don’t have to
get an A-plus in sanctity, a C-minus will do just fine.
In his Provincial Letters,
Blaise Pascal (a Class 1 Catholic if ever there was one) finds fault with the
Jesuits of his day for bending Catholicism so that it will accommodate the
un-Christian code of honor that was then typical of upper-class gentlemen. In
one of the more hilarious letters, Pascal tells of a Jesuit casuist (some
things never change) who figured out a way for a gentleman to participate in a
duel while not, technically speaking, violating the Catholic rule that dueling
is a mortal sin.
So can it be argued that the “softness”
with regard to sex-related sins that we find today among many bishops and
priests is just one more example of what has been an all-too-human Catholic
practice since at least the fourth century, the practice of – not exactly
consenting to – but tolerating the many imperfections of Class 2 Catholics?
No, I don’t think so. When the
Jesuits tolerated, say, the morality of 17th century French gentlemen – a
morality that included dueling and “gallantry” (as upper-class adultery was
euphemistically called) – they were not tolerating a non- or anti-Catholic
religion. They were tolerating – however much we may laugh about it – an
un-Catholic code of manners and morals, quite a different thing.
But when today’s Jesuits (and
other Catholic clerics) are “soft” on sex-related sins, including
homosexuality, they are doing much more than making a calculated accommodation
to an un-Christian code of manners. They are tolerating a sexual ethic that is
part and parcel of an increasingly militant anti-Catholic religion.
What religion is that? Secular
humanism, a comprehensive worldview that is tantamount to a (God-less)
religion. Dueling in 17th century upper-class Paris was bad, but it was not an
affirmation of an anti-Catholic religion. By contrast, abortion and homosexuality
in 21st century America truly are affirmations of a growing and decidedly
anti-Catholic quasi-religion.
Catholic leaders from the pope
on down need to wake up to the nature of that new mortal threat.
