Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 7:20:39 GMT -5
A Question of Authority, Fr. Anthony Cekada, June, 1990.
Also in PDF linked HERE
A Question of Authority
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Beware him who says: "Follow me or die!"
A FEW WEEKS AGO, I was invited to attend a conclave and help elect a pope.
Thirty years ago, the offer would have been irresistible, but these days any traditional Catholic priest whose name appears on a number of mailing lists receives at least one such invitation a year. This year's conclave will convene somewhere in Kansas during July. Needless to say, I plan to be elsewhere.
A home-made conclave strikes us as bizarre or even comical. Who are these people in Kansas --last year, it was Canada -- to elect the Successor of Peter and Christ's Vicar on earth? Why propose such nonsense?
The outlandish example, nevertheless, illustrates a very real dilemma which traditional Catholics face: The Church's very nature is hierarchical, founded on an authority which comes from Christ Himself. But where do we turn when men of the Church in positions of authority defect from the faith, as happened in our own time? How then do we resolve pressing issues in, say, theology or canon law or pastoral practice -- questions which only someone with real authority can resolve?
The organizers of the Kansas conclave would answer: It's simple; elect a pope. Once you've got a pope, you're home free. He'll have supreme authority, he'll appoint a Catholic hierarchy, and he'll resolve all the questions.
A Holding Action
Most Catholics who are attempting to preserve the traditional Mass and the integral Catholic faith, clergy and laity alike, instinctively recognize the folly of the conclavists' extreme enterprise. We understand, at least implicitly, that our efforts are but a "holding action" to save as many souls as we can until better days arrive. And most of us realize, again at least implicitly, that it would be gravely wrong -- indeed, manifestly schismatic -- to set up a parallel "hierarchy" on our own by endowing some person or organization with "authority" to be our magisterium, supreme lawmaker, and universal judge.
No traditional clergyman, remember, be he priest or even bishop, possesses ordinary jurisdiction -- power from the Church to command subjects, make laws, interpret them authoritatively, conduct trials, issue judgements, settle legal disputes, and inflict canonical penalties. Church law grants ordinary jurisdiction only to individuals formally appointed to specific offices: to a bishop, for instance, whom the pope names as head of a diocese, or to a priest whom the head of a diocese officially designates a pastor, or to another priest whom the pope appoints judge in an ecclesiastical tribunal.
Unlike these officials, a priest or bishop who celebrates the traditional Mass enjoys only supplied jurisdiction -- in essence, just enough power to dispense the sacraments.
Presenting... "Autsequism" !
Traditional Catholic clergymen acknowledge the narrow scope of their authority -- usually. However, a priest (or bishop or even a layman) can easily step over the line, when, on one particular issue say, he acts as if he were an authoritative teacher, lawmaker and judge by inflicting the equivalent of ecclesiastical penalties on those who cross him.
This I call the "Follow-me-or-die!" syndrome --or to give it a more formal name, "autsequism" (from aut sequi, aut mori, the Latin rendering of the phrase).
The syndrome works this way: Father W (or Writer X, or Bishop Y, or the Society of Z, for that matter) looks at a disputed theological question or a sticky problem of how to apply the norms of Canon Law or pastoral practice in a given situation. He marshals some principles (so far, so good), gathers evidence (a reasonable step), arrives at some conclusion (fair enough, one hopes), and then jumps to condemn all clergy and layfolk who disagree with his solution as, variously, heretics, schismatics, sinners or generic reprobates acting in complete bad faith and therefore to be avoided. (Whoa!)
It is in the final phase of the process -- arrogating to himself the authority to inflict a penalty for non-assent -- where the perpetrator exceeds his jurisdictional speed limit and careens off into the world of follow-me-or-die.
Some Follow-Me-or-Die Issues Autsequism has been on the traditionalist scene for a long time and rears its head in numerous guises:
*Various non-sedevacantist groups declaring sedevacantist groups "schismatic," and to be avoided.
* Various sedevacantist groups and priests declaring non-sedevacantist groups heretical or schismatic, and equally to be avoided.
* A priest in Pennsylvania issuing a letter of "excommunication" to an obnoxious layman.
* A priest on the West Coast announcing that members of the Birch Society were barred from receiving the sacraments in his church.
* A group of traditionalist sisters, who themselves enjoy no canonical recognition, declaring a former member's renewal of vows "sacrilegious" and "uncanonical."
* A lay group in the Middle West requiring a guest priest to ascribe in writing to their position on the pope before they allow him to perform a wedding in their church.
To understand fully the consequences of the follow-me-or-die syndrome, it's best to look at some cases a bit more closely. Two recent manifestations, encountered of late in my own pastoral experience, are perfect for this purpose. Both concern the conditions required for the reception or administration of the sacraments.
Suffer the Children
Children who assist at Mass in the chapels I serve have no access to a bishop who will confirm them with the traditional rite. Some parents, therefore, bring their children to one of the chapels operated by the Society of St. Pius X, when one of the Society's bishops makes his yearly rounds. One would think that the Society would not object to this -- after all, it seems desirable that as many children as possible receive this sacrament. But one would think wrong, and therein lies a story.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society, ordained me a priest in 1977. Some years later, in 1983, I was among a group of nine American priests who, among other things, refused to implement a series of liturgical changes he proposed and who declined to accept certain of his private theological opinions. (Though His Grace is a bishop, he is not the head of a diocese, and hence enjoys no jurisdiction from the pope to make and enforce laws.) This led to a parting of the ways between His Grace and the nine of us, and there the matter remains.
Plenty to Declare
Seven years later, in 1990, some families who assist at my Masses presented their children for Confirmation at a chapel one of the Society's bishops was to visit. The priest in charge, in turn, presented them with a two-page, single-spaced Declaration for their children to sign as a condition for the reception of Confirmation. The purpose of the Declaration (which combines heavy doses of theological terminology, execrable English, and Latin quotes from the Code of Canon Law -- for ten-year-olds, mind you!) was to force candidates (a) to repudiate theological opinions which the Society thinks I hold, and (b) to accept the theological positions which the Society holds (or thinks it holds -- a bit tricky this).
Outrage, of course, is the proper reaction. But analyze the thought processes which lead to this "extra" requirement: The Society has drawn its conclusions on certain theological, rubrical or canonical questions. Fine. These opinions, the Society feels, are diametrically opposed to those of Father Cekada, whom the Society considers to be dead wrong. Fine, and no surprise to me. But then, by presenting a Declaration to the confirmands, the Society proceeds to threaten those who may not share its conclusions with the equivalent of an ecclesiastical penalty: Accept our principles, evidence, conclusions and judgements on all points by signing this Declaration, or be denied a sacrament.
The Society, thus, sets itself up like an ad hoc mini-magisterium, lawmaker and ecclesiastical judge with power to enforce its will -- Follow me or die, in other words.
Error and Correction
For nearly a year now, I have been functioning as de facto "pastor" of St. Clare's Mission in Columbus, Ohio, where I travel every Sunday to celebrate Mass. Among the souls now worshipping there are some lay people who, at various points and in differing degrees, became supporters of an institution in Spokane, Washington called Mount St. Michael's. The St. Michael's group was founded by Francis Schuckardt, a lay preacher of the Fatima Message who in the 1960's gathered together a group of enthusiastic followers, and bit by bit, proceeded to construct for himself what I can only describe as a classic personality cult. In 1970, Schuckardt had a married Old Catholic "bishop," one Daniel Q. Brown, consecrate him a "bishop." ("Old Catholic" is a generic term for a number of schismatic sects originating in the 17th and 19th centuries.)
Despite this, Schuckardt's magnetic personality, eloquence and emphasis on the traditional Mass and Marian piety gained many lay adherents for his movement in various parts of the U.S. over the years. Given the average layman's ignorance of the Old Catholic movement's schismatic nature -- I have more than once met other traditional Catholics who have unwittingly gotten mixed up with Old Catholicism -- it is only fair to assume that most people followed along in good faith with no thought at all of getting involved with the Old Catholic schism.
In the early 1980's, some senior members of the group, by then located in Spokane, forced Schuckardt out, and apparently began the process of trying to set things aright. On April 23, 1985, the group abjured its errors, and has circulated at least two public statements attesting to the fact. The new leadership, moreover, has stated that the group was formerly a "cult," that the members want only to be good traditional Catholics and that the leadership wants to bring everything they do into line with traditional Catholic beliefs and practices.
Now once again, one would think that all would rejoice at the outcome -- abjuration, renunciation of past errors, determination just to be good Catholics and so on. But again, one would think wrong, and again, therein lies another story.
An Unexpected Letter
Recently, I received a lengthy and unexpected letter from Rev. Clarence Kelly, a priest with whom I formerly worked in Oyster Bay Cove, New York, but with whom I have had no connection since July, 1989.
In a nutshell, Father: (a) Condemns the misdeeds of Francis Schuckardt, particularly his involvement with Old Catholics -- something I did years ago, by the way, in a lengthy article I wrote on the Old Catholic movement. (b) Dismisses as "insincere or "contrived" (based on standards of his own creation, alas!) the abjuration of error and the other public recantations the group and its leaders made after Schuckardt's expulsion. (c) Presumes that everyone ever associated with Mount St. Michael's, including families two thousand miles away in Columbus, acted in complete bad faith (i.e., knowing involvement with Old Catholics was wrong or schismatic, but going along with it anyway), and (d) Concludes that everyone connected with St. Michael's is really still part of "an Old Catholic sect."
But why, the reader will ask, is Father Kelly writing to you about it, Father Cekada, since you have no connection whatsoever with either Father Kelly or Mount St. Michael's? Well, having weighed the matter and arrived at his conclusion, Father Kelly wrote to inform me of his decision that I, Father Cekada, must now (a) regard some of my parishioners as unrepentant schismatics and (b) deny them the sacraments. If I do otherwise, I "scandalize and endanger their souls and faith," I "pollute the purity of the Catholic religion," and I become a wolf in sheep's clothing -- language of the sort, please note, normally reserved to papal decrees pronouncing condemnatory sentences.
Examine the process by which he reached this practical conclusion: Father Kelly (who, like any other traditional priest or organization, possesses no juridical authority whatsoever) set up his own rules by which those whom he accused would be judged, and when (naturally) the accused didn't measure up, he found them all guilty as charged. He then imposed the penalty: some of your parishioners, Father Cekada, are to be denied the sacraments, and should you act otherwise, you're a threat to the Catholic religion and must be condemned publicly as such.
Thus like the Society of St. Pius X, Father Kelly, too, set himself up like an ad hoc mini-magisterium, lawmaker and ecclesiastical judge with power to enforce his will -- Follow me or die, in other words.
The Faithful in Good Faith
An additional observation on both the foregoing cases is in order. No traditional organization or priest that I know of -- and this includes both the Society and Father Kelly -- requires formal declarations or abjurations from Novus ordo Catholics who "convert" and want to receive the traditional sacraments. The reasonable assumption behind this is that newcomers who claim to be Catholics and who are trying to act like Catholics -- whatever their past involvement in the errors and depredations of the Conciliar religion -- have: (a) at least acted in good faith, and (b) been absolved of any censure they may have incurred, once they have gone to confession to a traditional priest. Given this assumption, it seems inimical to the salvation of souls -- and just plain silly -- to dream up "extra" requirements to impose on people who have rejected the Conciliar religion for years.
False Dilemmas
The follow-me-or-die syndrome has brought nothing but grief to a scattered flock trying desperately to preserve the faith under circumstances already adverse enough. Priests, bishops and organizations who have played the hierarch have usually ended up inflicting on traditional Catholic groups and individuals false dilemmas, public discord, contrived crises of conscience, scandal, family strife, and a host of other evils -- precisely the sort of things which drive people away from the true Mass rather than draw them to it.
While no one appreciates absolute certitude more than Catholics faithful to tradition, those of us responsible for shepherding the flocks must take care lest we invest pronouncements which are merely our opinions with the sort of authority that neither we nor our opinions possess. Not absolutely every theory, opinion or practical judgement we come up with, after all, is a matter of grace or guilt, salvation or perdition, heaven or hell. Should we pretend otherwise and start dishing out penalties all around, we (and not the targets of our ire) become the ones leading a slow waltz to schism.
Antidote to Autsequism
The antidote to autsequism is, I think, two-fold:
Acknowledge your limits: Whatever your opinion on any of the great issues traditional Catholics so often debate, remember that you have no authority from Christ and the Church to resolve it definitively, nor can you inflict censures on those who disagree with your conclusions.
Presume good will: Not everyone is as great a genius as you are in dogma, ecclesiology, canon law, church history, moral or whatever; naturally, your opponents cannot perceive the brilliance of your reasoning. But it might be nice (at least once in a while) to presume that they have some good will. Try it.
The follow-me-or-die syndrome probably won't disappear till God, in His good time, restores order throughout the Church. In the meantime, since disagree we must, let us pray for a bit more prudence and common sense.
June, 1990. St. Hugh of Lincoln Church
2401 South 12th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53215
Also in PDF linked HERE
A Question of Authority
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Beware him who says: "Follow me or die!"
A FEW WEEKS AGO, I was invited to attend a conclave and help elect a pope.
Thirty years ago, the offer would have been irresistible, but these days any traditional Catholic priest whose name appears on a number of mailing lists receives at least one such invitation a year. This year's conclave will convene somewhere in Kansas during July. Needless to say, I plan to be elsewhere.
A home-made conclave strikes us as bizarre or even comical. Who are these people in Kansas --last year, it was Canada -- to elect the Successor of Peter and Christ's Vicar on earth? Why propose such nonsense?
The outlandish example, nevertheless, illustrates a very real dilemma which traditional Catholics face: The Church's very nature is hierarchical, founded on an authority which comes from Christ Himself. But where do we turn when men of the Church in positions of authority defect from the faith, as happened in our own time? How then do we resolve pressing issues in, say, theology or canon law or pastoral practice -- questions which only someone with real authority can resolve?
The organizers of the Kansas conclave would answer: It's simple; elect a pope. Once you've got a pope, you're home free. He'll have supreme authority, he'll appoint a Catholic hierarchy, and he'll resolve all the questions.
A Holding Action
Most Catholics who are attempting to preserve the traditional Mass and the integral Catholic faith, clergy and laity alike, instinctively recognize the folly of the conclavists' extreme enterprise. We understand, at least implicitly, that our efforts are but a "holding action" to save as many souls as we can until better days arrive. And most of us realize, again at least implicitly, that it would be gravely wrong -- indeed, manifestly schismatic -- to set up a parallel "hierarchy" on our own by endowing some person or organization with "authority" to be our magisterium, supreme lawmaker, and universal judge.
No traditional clergyman, remember, be he priest or even bishop, possesses ordinary jurisdiction -- power from the Church to command subjects, make laws, interpret them authoritatively, conduct trials, issue judgements, settle legal disputes, and inflict canonical penalties. Church law grants ordinary jurisdiction only to individuals formally appointed to specific offices: to a bishop, for instance, whom the pope names as head of a diocese, or to a priest whom the head of a diocese officially designates a pastor, or to another priest whom the pope appoints judge in an ecclesiastical tribunal.
Unlike these officials, a priest or bishop who celebrates the traditional Mass enjoys only supplied jurisdiction -- in essence, just enough power to dispense the sacraments.
Presenting... "Autsequism" !
Traditional Catholic clergymen acknowledge the narrow scope of their authority -- usually. However, a priest (or bishop or even a layman) can easily step over the line, when, on one particular issue say, he acts as if he were an authoritative teacher, lawmaker and judge by inflicting the equivalent of ecclesiastical penalties on those who cross him.
This I call the "Follow-me-or-die!" syndrome --or to give it a more formal name, "autsequism" (from aut sequi, aut mori, the Latin rendering of the phrase).
The syndrome works this way: Father W (or Writer X, or Bishop Y, or the Society of Z, for that matter) looks at a disputed theological question or a sticky problem of how to apply the norms of Canon Law or pastoral practice in a given situation. He marshals some principles (so far, so good), gathers evidence (a reasonable step), arrives at some conclusion (fair enough, one hopes), and then jumps to condemn all clergy and layfolk who disagree with his solution as, variously, heretics, schismatics, sinners or generic reprobates acting in complete bad faith and therefore to be avoided. (Whoa!)
It is in the final phase of the process -- arrogating to himself the authority to inflict a penalty for non-assent -- where the perpetrator exceeds his jurisdictional speed limit and careens off into the world of follow-me-or-die.
Some Follow-Me-or-Die Issues Autsequism has been on the traditionalist scene for a long time and rears its head in numerous guises:
*Various non-sedevacantist groups declaring sedevacantist groups "schismatic," and to be avoided.
* Various sedevacantist groups and priests declaring non-sedevacantist groups heretical or schismatic, and equally to be avoided.
* A priest in Pennsylvania issuing a letter of "excommunication" to an obnoxious layman.
* A priest on the West Coast announcing that members of the Birch Society were barred from receiving the sacraments in his church.
* A group of traditionalist sisters, who themselves enjoy no canonical recognition, declaring a former member's renewal of vows "sacrilegious" and "uncanonical."
* A lay group in the Middle West requiring a guest priest to ascribe in writing to their position on the pope before they allow him to perform a wedding in their church.
To understand fully the consequences of the follow-me-or-die syndrome, it's best to look at some cases a bit more closely. Two recent manifestations, encountered of late in my own pastoral experience, are perfect for this purpose. Both concern the conditions required for the reception or administration of the sacraments.
Suffer the Children
Children who assist at Mass in the chapels I serve have no access to a bishop who will confirm them with the traditional rite. Some parents, therefore, bring their children to one of the chapels operated by the Society of St. Pius X, when one of the Society's bishops makes his yearly rounds. One would think that the Society would not object to this -- after all, it seems desirable that as many children as possible receive this sacrament. But one would think wrong, and therein lies a story.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society, ordained me a priest in 1977. Some years later, in 1983, I was among a group of nine American priests who, among other things, refused to implement a series of liturgical changes he proposed and who declined to accept certain of his private theological opinions. (Though His Grace is a bishop, he is not the head of a diocese, and hence enjoys no jurisdiction from the pope to make and enforce laws.) This led to a parting of the ways between His Grace and the nine of us, and there the matter remains.
Plenty to Declare
Seven years later, in 1990, some families who assist at my Masses presented their children for Confirmation at a chapel one of the Society's bishops was to visit. The priest in charge, in turn, presented them with a two-page, single-spaced Declaration for their children to sign as a condition for the reception of Confirmation. The purpose of the Declaration (which combines heavy doses of theological terminology, execrable English, and Latin quotes from the Code of Canon Law -- for ten-year-olds, mind you!) was to force candidates (a) to repudiate theological opinions which the Society thinks I hold, and (b) to accept the theological positions which the Society holds (or thinks it holds -- a bit tricky this).
Outrage, of course, is the proper reaction. But analyze the thought processes which lead to this "extra" requirement: The Society has drawn its conclusions on certain theological, rubrical or canonical questions. Fine. These opinions, the Society feels, are diametrically opposed to those of Father Cekada, whom the Society considers to be dead wrong. Fine, and no surprise to me. But then, by presenting a Declaration to the confirmands, the Society proceeds to threaten those who may not share its conclusions with the equivalent of an ecclesiastical penalty: Accept our principles, evidence, conclusions and judgements on all points by signing this Declaration, or be denied a sacrament.
The Society, thus, sets itself up like an ad hoc mini-magisterium, lawmaker and ecclesiastical judge with power to enforce its will -- Follow me or die, in other words.
Error and Correction
For nearly a year now, I have been functioning as de facto "pastor" of St. Clare's Mission in Columbus, Ohio, where I travel every Sunday to celebrate Mass. Among the souls now worshipping there are some lay people who, at various points and in differing degrees, became supporters of an institution in Spokane, Washington called Mount St. Michael's. The St. Michael's group was founded by Francis Schuckardt, a lay preacher of the Fatima Message who in the 1960's gathered together a group of enthusiastic followers, and bit by bit, proceeded to construct for himself what I can only describe as a classic personality cult. In 1970, Schuckardt had a married Old Catholic "bishop," one Daniel Q. Brown, consecrate him a "bishop." ("Old Catholic" is a generic term for a number of schismatic sects originating in the 17th and 19th centuries.)
Despite this, Schuckardt's magnetic personality, eloquence and emphasis on the traditional Mass and Marian piety gained many lay adherents for his movement in various parts of the U.S. over the years. Given the average layman's ignorance of the Old Catholic movement's schismatic nature -- I have more than once met other traditional Catholics who have unwittingly gotten mixed up with Old Catholicism -- it is only fair to assume that most people followed along in good faith with no thought at all of getting involved with the Old Catholic schism.
In the early 1980's, some senior members of the group, by then located in Spokane, forced Schuckardt out, and apparently began the process of trying to set things aright. On April 23, 1985, the group abjured its errors, and has circulated at least two public statements attesting to the fact. The new leadership, moreover, has stated that the group was formerly a "cult," that the members want only to be good traditional Catholics and that the leadership wants to bring everything they do into line with traditional Catholic beliefs and practices.
Now once again, one would think that all would rejoice at the outcome -- abjuration, renunciation of past errors, determination just to be good Catholics and so on. But again, one would think wrong, and again, therein lies another story.
An Unexpected Letter
Recently, I received a lengthy and unexpected letter from Rev. Clarence Kelly, a priest with whom I formerly worked in Oyster Bay Cove, New York, but with whom I have had no connection since July, 1989.
In a nutshell, Father: (a) Condemns the misdeeds of Francis Schuckardt, particularly his involvement with Old Catholics -- something I did years ago, by the way, in a lengthy article I wrote on the Old Catholic movement. (b) Dismisses as "insincere or "contrived" (based on standards of his own creation, alas!) the abjuration of error and the other public recantations the group and its leaders made after Schuckardt's expulsion. (c) Presumes that everyone ever associated with Mount St. Michael's, including families two thousand miles away in Columbus, acted in complete bad faith (i.e., knowing involvement with Old Catholics was wrong or schismatic, but going along with it anyway), and (d) Concludes that everyone connected with St. Michael's is really still part of "an Old Catholic sect."
But why, the reader will ask, is Father Kelly writing to you about it, Father Cekada, since you have no connection whatsoever with either Father Kelly or Mount St. Michael's? Well, having weighed the matter and arrived at his conclusion, Father Kelly wrote to inform me of his decision that I, Father Cekada, must now (a) regard some of my parishioners as unrepentant schismatics and (b) deny them the sacraments. If I do otherwise, I "scandalize and endanger their souls and faith," I "pollute the purity of the Catholic religion," and I become a wolf in sheep's clothing -- language of the sort, please note, normally reserved to papal decrees pronouncing condemnatory sentences.
Examine the process by which he reached this practical conclusion: Father Kelly (who, like any other traditional priest or organization, possesses no juridical authority whatsoever) set up his own rules by which those whom he accused would be judged, and when (naturally) the accused didn't measure up, he found them all guilty as charged. He then imposed the penalty: some of your parishioners, Father Cekada, are to be denied the sacraments, and should you act otherwise, you're a threat to the Catholic religion and must be condemned publicly as such.
Thus like the Society of St. Pius X, Father Kelly, too, set himself up like an ad hoc mini-magisterium, lawmaker and ecclesiastical judge with power to enforce his will -- Follow me or die, in other words.
The Faithful in Good Faith
An additional observation on both the foregoing cases is in order. No traditional organization or priest that I know of -- and this includes both the Society and Father Kelly -- requires formal declarations or abjurations from Novus ordo Catholics who "convert" and want to receive the traditional sacraments. The reasonable assumption behind this is that newcomers who claim to be Catholics and who are trying to act like Catholics -- whatever their past involvement in the errors and depredations of the Conciliar religion -- have: (a) at least acted in good faith, and (b) been absolved of any censure they may have incurred, once they have gone to confession to a traditional priest. Given this assumption, it seems inimical to the salvation of souls -- and just plain silly -- to dream up "extra" requirements to impose on people who have rejected the Conciliar religion for years.
False Dilemmas
The follow-me-or-die syndrome has brought nothing but grief to a scattered flock trying desperately to preserve the faith under circumstances already adverse enough. Priests, bishops and organizations who have played the hierarch have usually ended up inflicting on traditional Catholic groups and individuals false dilemmas, public discord, contrived crises of conscience, scandal, family strife, and a host of other evils -- precisely the sort of things which drive people away from the true Mass rather than draw them to it.
While no one appreciates absolute certitude more than Catholics faithful to tradition, those of us responsible for shepherding the flocks must take care lest we invest pronouncements which are merely our opinions with the sort of authority that neither we nor our opinions possess. Not absolutely every theory, opinion or practical judgement we come up with, after all, is a matter of grace or guilt, salvation or perdition, heaven or hell. Should we pretend otherwise and start dishing out penalties all around, we (and not the targets of our ire) become the ones leading a slow waltz to schism.
Antidote to Autsequism
The antidote to autsequism is, I think, two-fold:
Acknowledge your limits: Whatever your opinion on any of the great issues traditional Catholics so often debate, remember that you have no authority from Christ and the Church to resolve it definitively, nor can you inflict censures on those who disagree with your conclusions.
Presume good will: Not everyone is as great a genius as you are in dogma, ecclesiology, canon law, church history, moral or whatever; naturally, your opponents cannot perceive the brilliance of your reasoning. But it might be nice (at least once in a while) to presume that they have some good will. Try it.
The follow-me-or-die syndrome probably won't disappear till God, in His good time, restores order throughout the Church. In the meantime, since disagree we must, let us pray for a bit more prudence and common sense.
June, 1990. St. Hugh of Lincoln Church
2401 South 12th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53215