Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

To Give a Defense

Home
Catholic
Is Criticizing Priests Forbidden to Catholics? In Fact, We Have a Right To.

Is Criticizing Priests Forbidden to Catholics? In Fact, We Have a Right To.

Last updated on: March 10, 2018 at 6:12 pm by Scott Eric Alt

Is Criticizing Priests Forbidden to Catholics? In Fact, We Have a Right To. 2018-03-10T18:12:00-04:00 Scott Eric Alt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image via Pixabay

This is not another post about Fr. Pavone. Saints forbid. But it was during a discussion of that topic on Facebook that someone made the claim that Catholics are “not allowed” to criticize priests. I am going to limit myself, therefore, to that specific claim. I do not, here, address the topic of whether criticism of priests is imprudent. Nor do I discuss the extent to which we must do so in charity, or privately, with respect for the office, and so on. I address only the claim that it is “not allowed.”

As near as I can tell, this belief has its origins in a section of the Pieta Prayer Book that quotes from a private revelation. Here is the key text.

One should NEVER attack a priest, even when he’s in error, rather one should pray and do penance that I’ll grant him My grace again. He alone fully represents Me, even when he doesn’t live after my example!

PPB attributes these words to “Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel.” And the first thing one should know on this point is that Catholics are not bound by private revelation. They are not bound even to those the Church has approved. The conscience of Catholics is bound only to public revelation, and public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. When the Church approves a private revelation, that only means she has found nothing contrary to faith or morals there. Catholics may choose to believe it, but the Church does not compel them to. A Catholic who chooses to believe “Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel,” can decide for himself, “I will not ever criticize a priest.” But he cannot bind another Catholic to that under penalty of sin.

If Our Lord had thought that such a prohibition should bind all Catholics, would he not have included it as public revelation?

Second, one should also note that the Church has nowhere approved “Our Lord’s revelations to Mutter Vogel.” In fact, Vogel is such an obscure personage that I find no reference to her in either the Old or New Catholic Encyclopedias. One may think of these words as, at best, a pious suggestion, but they are certainly far from an official stricture upon criticism of priests.

“But Alt!” you will say. “What about John 17:18? What about John 20:21? Or Luke 10:16?”

Okay. What about them?

In the first two, Christ says, “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” The most this tells me is that Christ ordained priests to preach the gospel. He ordained priests to administer the sacraments. But none of that is in dispute. To suggest that criticism of priests is the same as criticism of Christ is to read into the text what is not there. It is eisegesis. Christ is sinless; Christ does not make mistakes. This we know. He sends apostles to preach the Gospel, but he does not make them impeccable. Not even the pope is without error in all things.

In Luke 10:16, Christ says the apostles, “Whoever hears you, hears me, but whoever rejects you rejects me.”

The problem is that Christ is speaking about the apostles only as teachers of the faith. He means that anyone who rejects the apostles’ teaching has rejected Christ. But priests are not official teachers of the faith. They are, but only insofar as they remain consistent with the Magisterium of the Church—the pope and the bishops in union with him.

And not even bishops get such a privilege when it comes to their actions—their teaching yes, their actions no. Christ says nothing about whether we may criticize a bishop for living in a big, roomy mansion. (I do not say that is or is not a fair criticism, only that Luke 10:16 has no application. To reject the bishop’s mansion is not the same as to reject Christ.)

“But Alt!” you will say. “What about St. Francis? Remember?”

The saint was close to the end of his life, unable to walk and suffering from an eye disease and the stigmata. As he was brought through a region, some people from a nearby town came to ask for his help with their parish priest. They had discovered that their priest was involved in a scandalous relationship with a woman of that town. The saint was brought to the town and placed before the priest in front of everyone. They thought that the saint would upbraid the fallen priest. St. Francis instead fell to his knees, took the priest’s hands into his own stigmatized hands, kissed them and said, “All I know and all I want to know is that these hands give me Jesus.” It was said that the priest was converted.

This story dates to the thirteenth century, according to the Register article which quotes it, and it is certainly a very pious tale. I would not wish to dispute the truth of it. But the most it tells us is that St. Francis was not in the habit of criticizing priests. We may certainly choose to emulate his example, but there is no reason to think we are bound by it.

“But Alt!” you will say. “St. Catherine of Siena is a Doctor of the Church! In her Dialogues she tells us that Christ warned against criticism of priests! What say you?”

Yes. She did. And again, this is a private revelation to which Catholics are not bound. You can say that we ought to take St. Catherine’s suggestion seriously. You can say that the fact that she is a saint, and a Doctor, gives her words a particular weight. But what you cannot say is that the conscience of Catholics is bound by St. Catherine’s Dialogues. What you cannot say is that the Dialogues are magisterial teaching.

In fact, go to the Code of Canon Law 208-223, and you will find it says much about the obligations, but also the rights, of the faithful. Canon 212 tells us that Catholics must “show Christian obedience” to their pastors. But you will also find these words.

They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

When it “concern[s] the good of the Church,” Catholics may certainly criticize priests. They even have the right to do so publicly. Now, the canon does say that the criticism must be in keeping with Church teaching, and that Catholics must “show due reverence.” In other words, they must obey the law of charity.

But not only are Catholics not forbidden to criticize priests, they actually have a right to—when it involves the good of the Church.

***

Priesthood

Canon Law

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Pieta Prayer Book

Private Revelation

St. Catherine of Siena

St. Francis of Assisi

Previous Post

November 14, 2016

Where is the Baby Now? Fr. Frank Pavone's Words are Inconsistent.

Next Post

November 16, 2016 How Many Times Must Amoris Laetitia Be Clarified?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion About Me Answers for Calvinists Answers to Media Fictions Answers to Objections Anti-Catholicism Apologetics Apostolic Succession Atonement Authority of the Church Baptism Benedictines Biblical Exegesis Blogging Book Reviews Books & Writing &c. Calvin's Institutes Capital Punishment Catholic Church Chastity Christology Church Fathers Church Social Doctrine Confession Contraception Conversion Stories Crusades Debates Depression & Suicide Deuterocanon Development of Doctrine Ecumenism English Language Eucharistic Adoration Exorcism Extra Ecclesiam Fisks & Rebuttals Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Fundamentalism Gender Politics Gender Theory Good Works Homosexuality Humor Idolatry Immaculate Conception In the News Inquisition ISIS Islam Just for Fun Just War Justification LCWR Limbo Liturgical Abuse Liturgical Year Magisterium Marriage and Family Mary Mortal Sin New Evangelization NFP Papacy Papal Documents Papal Infallibility Personal Narrative Politics Pope Francis Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Population Control Praying to the "Dead" Priesthood Primacy of Peter Protestant Denominations Purgatory Radical Islam Radical Traditionalists Real Presence Right to Conscience RIght to Life Saints Same-Sex "Marriage" Seven Quick Takes Social Justice Social Media Sola Scriptura Spirit of Vatican II SSPX The Eucharist The Mass The Resurrection Traditionalism Vatican II Year of Mercy

Select a Month August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 May 2013 April 2013 February 2013 January 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the mother of Samuel?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ruth Hannah Rebekah Deborah