Bishop May Have Stirred 'Americanists' with Stand, by Kenneth J. Moynihan, Telegram & Gazette, October 17, 2007

Bishop May Have Stirred 'Americanists' with Stand

By Kenneth J. Moynihan
Telegram & Gazette
October 17, 2007

http://www.telegram.com/article/20071017/COLUMN20/710170351/1020

A few years ago, when revelations of sexual abuse by priests began to tumble daily from the front page of The Boston Globe, I was able to fit most of the pieces together, sordid as the story was. What various people had done or not done seemed to be in accord with what I understood of the world with one major exception. I could not figure out what the bishops could have been thinking during their long cover-up. In time I learned more, and I think I understood more.

The bishop reminded everyone that he has the ‘pastoral and canonical responsibility to determine what institutions can properly call themselves Catholic.’

I raise the question because there are common threads between the controversy over sexual misconduct and the much less dramatic controversy last week between the bishop of Worcester, the Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, and the president of the College of the Holy Cross, the Rev. Michael C. McFarland. One thread that ties the two stories to each other is what might be called and has been called — the Americanist question. I use the word loosely to refer to the notion that typically American values, especially those related to democracy and individual liberty, might be weakening the attachment of American Catholics to the Roman church and its teachings.

In an 1899 encyclical addressed to the American bishops, Pope Leo XIII warned that "The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions." The pope condemned the "new opinions" as attempts to "tone down" church teachings.

Some scholars still debate whether a century ago there really was an Americanist heresy for the pope to condemn, while others decry the triumph in our time of Americanism in the form of "toned-down" Catholicism.

They find it largely responsible for the spread of artificial contraception, abortion and the approval of homosexual marriage. In some circles the preferred term for Americanist is "liberal" or "modernist."

Americans in their political lives have long since developed habits of democracy and individual freedom. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an authoritarian institution. While self-governing citizens deal with public issues by counting votes, the church takes its guidance from what it believes to be the highest authority. It sees as one of its obligations the definition and clear promulgation of Catholic beliefs, what Leo XIII called the "deposit of faith."

Navigating the crosscurrents of such a cultural sea can be a delicate thing. When I read the statement of Bishop McManus protesting a conference on teenage pregnancy scheduled at Holy Cross, I could not help asking again the question: What could he have been thinking?

Sure, there was room for disagreement over whether it was proper to host a conference that included two groups dedicated to the "right to choose" legal abortion. Was that disagreement significant enough to prompt a public and personal call for the president of Holy Cross to revoke permission for the meeting? Wasn't he worried about causing more scandal than he prevented?

These were all political questions, based on my unexamined assumption that it is wiser for a bishop to be well-liked than not, and that means avoiding public controversy as much as possible. Bishop McManus said the church's position on the sacredness of life was too central to be subject to "modification and compromise."

The bishop reminded everyone that he has the "pastoral and canonical responsibility to determine what institutions can properly call themselves Catholic." He said it was his "will" that Holy Cross dissociate itself from the conference "so that the college can continue to be recognized as a Catholic institution committed to promoting the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."

It is a heavy thing for Holy Cross to be told that it might be deprived of its formal identity as a Catholic institution unless it obeys the bishop's will on this matter. It must be even harder when the bishop volunteers the fact that before asking Holy Cross to drop the conference he had "received numerous complaints from people who (were) shocked and outraged" at Holy Cross' behavior.

Responding to the popular will is a democratic practice, as is going public with what might have continued to be a matter of internal disagreement. It could be only be a matter of time before some political "Americanists" among Worcester Catholics start gathering public support for the Holy Cross administration.