By Rev. Deogratias O. Ekisa S.T.D.
June 1, 2024
What a spirited defence!
“Why are you all attacking a good man?” That was a response I received when I
criticised Harrison’s
Butker’s commencement speech. Those
sentiments came from all quarters, not just from my usual sparring suspects. Some came in the form of vehement demands made
on my Facebook posts to take them down, others in the form of private friendly supplications
to desist from any further criticism of the footballer’s speech. Based on the intensity and frequency of the requests,
you would think that I had called Mother Teresa a prostitute or the Pope a
heretic. Actually, the latter has often
been done. It is interesting that no such spirited defence has been marshalled on
the Holy Father’s behalf.
In the last week I have asked myself, if on
the one hand, I could have gotten it all wrong.
On the other hand I have also wondered how seemingly good Catholic
people, could be so wrong in their defence of what is clearly a problematic
speech according to me.
Of course this speech and the whole saga
surrounding it, like most things, is not black or white, but is far more
complex; there is both good and bad in it.
And so, like my mother would cut off the spoilt part of the banana or
potato and feed us with the good part, I can rightly criticize the problematic
aspects of the speech, even as I acknowledge the good, however little there was
in my estimation.
The demands and requests of my friends,
however, went further than that – they wanted no criticism, or at least no strong,
public criticism of Butker. For in their estimation, there were no rotten parts
to the potato or if any, they would only cause a mild tummy ache that Alka-Seltzer
could easily treat. And the basis for these
appeals was that as a layman and a non-theologian, he could not be expected to
know the finer distinctions of theology, and was merely sharing his
understanding of the faith. Even the bishops who came to his
defence simply indicated that he had said some good things that needed to be
said, without addressing any of the problematic areas.
What about the problematic areas of the speech?
I, on the other hand, thought that the
problems in his speech were serious enough to warrant addressing, and this was
to be done in the public forum in which they were being disseminated. I defer to others who have given a fuller
treatment to the problems, but here are some of the highlights.
·
First, the tone of the speech was
an unwarranted diatribe against the current Church hierarchy. Save for a few remnant, he argued that many
of the priests and bishops are rubbish and should be ignored. He offered a vision for the Church, which
amounted to an alternative source of magisterial authority, even suggesting
that Catholics should search for the clergy that hold his views, those “traditional
and timeless teachings that haven't been ambiguously reworded for our times,” a
subtle reference to Pope Francis’ Magisterium.
·
What riled most people on
social media, especially non-Catholics were his views of the role of women in
society. For me that was the least
problematic issue, since he was somewhat expressing the basic understanding of
the complementarity of sexes, albeit in an extremely shoddy manner. Many
people heard a different message. In
fact, Pope Francis expresses that same teaching in a more complete way in No.
286 of Amoris
Laetitiae.
·
According to me, the most
serious theological problems lie elsewhere: his understanding of the priesthood
vis-à-vis the laity (compare with Presbyterorum
Ordinis 3), his facile dismissal of the Church’s position and indeed Pope
Saint John Paul II’s position on Natural Family Planning (compare with Familiaris
Consortio 35), his misrepresentation
of a bill in Congress against antisemitism as well as the antisemitic dog whistles
contained therein, and his dismissal of the current liturgy in favor of the
preconciliar liturgy (compare with Traditiones
Custodes) – even Pope Benedict XVI who liberally allowed the use of the
previous liturgy allowed it only on the condition those its adherents did not cast
doubt on the validity of the conciliar reforms, something that Butker
seemed to be doing.
In my opinion, the source of the problems
in this speech arises largely out of a lack of familiarity or consideration,
wilful or not, of the conciliar and post-conciliar Magisterium on these
matters.
Theological Paradox: what is within the pale of tolerance?
The question that has bothered me in the
last few days has been, why good Catholics are asking me to remain silent on
what is I see as being at odds with the faith.
Many did not even give me the courtesy of asking for my reasoning for my
theological positions – they just assumed I must be wrong. How could they be so
blind to these blatant departures from the teaching of the Church? What is their rationale?
Speculating on motives is a dangerous
exercise, since when Our Lord enjoins us not to judge (Lk. 6:37), while he does
not stop us from judging actions, it is interior motivations that we must not
judge – those must be left to the Lord.
I believe I can stay within what the Lord allows, if my speculation does
not address the motivations of individuals, but instead provides a
philosophical paradigm for their position.
In this way, I am attempting to give a logical explanation for this
seeming paradox, without impugning the motives of those who seemingly are
faithful Catholics but are also ready to ignore theological error.
Beyond Reason: there are other logical considerations
I learnt something recently at a leadership
seminar. The speaker suggested that
people’s communication styles could be grouped into four main categories: the
analytical, the driver, the amiable and the expressive. Each of these groups is primarily motivated
to action by a different consideration.
The analytical group prioritizes logical reason, the driver group
prioritizes results, the amiable group prioritizes relationships, and the
expressive group prioritizes creativity.
The speaker stressed that none of these ways is inherently superior to
the other; there are just different ways of operating, with each consideration
having a niche in specific situations.
The ideal would be for each person to have a perfect balance of all four
considerations, or for an organization to have an appropriate mix of people
with the various styles, and so press each consideration into service as needed.
Before the results of the test were out my
colleagues had already guessed which was my primary category – the
analytical. It is no secret that I
prioritize reason and the evidence of proven data in my decision making. Relationships,
results and creativity also play a part, but a secondary one. And so, that is probably why for me, when a
man speaks against Church teaching, it seems only reasonable to point out the
errors, especially if they are serious enough and likely to proliferate.
But as our seminar speaker noted, I need to
include the other three considerations, especially that of relationship and
results, in my deliberation. I need to
consider how my criticism will be received by those who admire Butker as a
person, those who see his speech as contributing to a greater good. And so, perhaps my response should have used
all four tools in my toolbox. Besides
providing Magisterial evidence countering Butker’s position, I should have gone
the extra mile to ensure that people’s relationships, hopes and aspirations
with him and the good that he stands for were not caught up in the crossfire.
Butker presented a conservative vision of Catholicism, that for some, is the
only version of Catholicism they know to be the true one. Any attack on that vision, that ideology, is therefore
seen as an attack on their treasured faith, hence the spirited defence and
counter attack combined with silence on the problematic areas.
As I take into account those other
considerations, my interlocutors also need to consider the premier place reason
plays in explaining and understanding the revealed data our faith. For as St. Peter reminds us, “Always be ready
to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope but do
it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear. . . .” (1 Pt.
3:15-16). I believe that is what Butker
was attempting to do in his speech, in a particular exercise of the rights
possessed by the Christian faithful according to Canon
212 of the Code of Canon Law.
Unfortunately, in exercising the faithful’s “duty to manifest to the
sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church
and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful” he
somewhat failed in doing so in the manner indicated by the same canon, “without
prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their
pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons” (CIC 212
§3).
One’s admiration of his vision, or really
of any charismatic celebrity or politician, cannot surely trump the obligation
to correct error, especially serious error, that the footballer shot across the
bow. True relationships must be built on
truth, otherwise they are built on sand; true results draw from the truth
otherwise they are temporary; true creativity must start from truth, otherwise
it has fake.
Imperfect people growing in perfect charity and faith
The only person who is immune from criticism, because he embodies the full truth is Our Lord Jesus Christ; for he is perfection itself. The Magisterial teaching of the Church comes a close second, with the various distinctions of its nature and the corresponding types of assent required of Catholics taken into account, since the Lord promised her Church protection from error (Lk. 10:16).
As individual members of the
faithful, we are imperfect, even as we seek to be perfect as our heavenly
Father is perfect, seeking to grow in perfect charity and faith. Thankfully, we have those who have taken the
place of Twelve Apostles, to guide us on this journey. Even as we struggle with this or other aspect
of their teaching and decisions, we would do well, to remain in the bosom of
their teaching, which by definition is Apostolic, instead of seeking
alternative guides who depart in any way, from the Apostolic Tradition and
Succession.
