In Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ latest post at On the Square, the issue of prudential judgment is once more raised prompted by Morning Minion’s recent post Neuhaus Annoys Again. Fr. Neuhaus pays small tribute to MM, describing his post as “among the more thoughtfully critical,” and quotes a large section of it at On the Square. To Fr. Neuhaus’ credit, he does not dismiss MM’s criticism as so many others have at this blog, but instead attempts to respond faithfully to MM’s points.
Despite Fr. Neuhaus’ courtesy and good-will, I could not help but notice that he fails to address MM’s salient points on the precise question of the extension of episcopal authority into the realm of so-called “prudential judgment.” Instead, Fr. Neuhaus produces the red herring upon which he has relied so strongly in his successive posts on prudential judgment. He once more airs the dirty laundry he’s let pile up since the days of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin’s “Spirit of Vatican II” leadership among the U.S. bishops. But not to be outdone by the “theological leftists”–a phrase taken dreadfully out of context from an address by Archbishop Timothy Dolan (Neuhaus conflates the distinction Dolan makes between the NCCB and the USCC)–is the U.S. sex scandal, on which Fr. Neuhaus continually falls back in an effort to discredit the competence and authority of the U.S. Bishops. But such a move is unnecessarily dishonest because it fails to address the heart of the question: the status of official pronouncements by the U.S. Bishops on matters of so-called “prudential judgment.” Fr. Neuhaus’ argument hinges on the credibility of the U.S. Bishops based upon their unofficial responses to heinous behavior of priests, and he once more says nothing theological or historical about their actual teaching authority granted them by virtue of their office.
Neuhaus’ arguments remind me of those fundamentalists who cite Paul’s opposition to Peter’s behavior with Gentile Christians in Galatians 2 in an effort to discredit the credibility and authority of Peter and his successors. Not only are the realities of episcopal (or papal) authority impervious to such ill-founded criticism, but also such criticism actually calls into question the competence and knowledge of the critic himself. What the readers of On the Square need (and what they are simply not getting) is a coherent, informed and theologically proficient account of the extension and boundaries of the official teaching authority of the U.S. Bishops. Rather, assertion and mere opinion is abounding. One can almost detect a sort of Donatist mentality operating in Neuhaus’ posts where the behavior of bishops some how hinders or nullifies their sacramental office.
And so while I am impressed with Fr. Neuhaus’ cordial address of MM’s post, I must reiterate that Fr. Neuhaus’ case for the incompetence of the U.S. bishops is, well, cold.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In