The Big Bully Pulpit

U P F A M

By Brian McCall

TheOxford English Dictionary defines a bully pulpit as "a public office or position of authority that provides its occupant with an outstanding opportunity to speak out on any issue." The term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt who was unable to enact many of the laws he favored and so instead spent much time "preaching" to the public on issues dear to him. He answered the critics of his "sermons" and explained his view of the Presidency this way: "I suppose my critics will call that preaching, but I have got such a bully pulpit!" Roosevelt realized that his immense authority as president gave him a great platform to persuade people to do what he wanted without enacting a single law.

Since the first Pentecost, the devil has been trying to legislate heresy and error into the Church. Yet, the charism of infallibility bestowed upon the Church has thwarted his attempts to corrupt the officially and definitively taught Deposit of Faith. At the Council of Jerusalem, the first Church council, the devil attempted through his operatives to get the Church to declare the continued effectiveness and obligation of the Mosaic Law for Christians. He failed.

The first Pope under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost stood up and proclaimed the truth that all men were welcome in the Church of Christ and need not become religious Jews first. Yet, the devil did not give up his fight to undermine the Church. He used St.

Peter himself, the very person who under the protection of the Holy Ghost had officially preserved dogma, to undermine the Council's decision. The devil figured out that the protection of infallibility is not universal. It does not extend to the bully pulpit but is limited to definitive, final and binding teaching acts of the universal Church.

St. Peter then used his "bully pulpit" to support the losing party at Jerusalem.

He avoided eating with Christians who had not complied with Jewish religious law until he was "resisted to the face" by St. Paul.

Three hundred years later Arius lost at the Council of Nicea and the true dogma regarding our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed. Notwithstanding this grace, for almost a century thereafter 98% of the bishops of the world, including a few popes, used their authority to bully people into thinking the Arian error was true. The most extreme case is that of Pope Liberius who under pressure from the Arians excommunicated St.

Athanasius and signed an ambiguous doctrinal declaration that could be interpreted either as Nicea taught or as the Arians proposed. Thus, not even intense pressure or even torture could result in a pope officially invoking his charism of infallibility to contradict the Deposit of Faith. But this protection did not prevent Pope Liberius from using his authority and prestige as pope to apparently support heresy and error and in point of fact lead many in the Church to accept and believe Arian error.

The historical examples could be multiplied. The point is that the devil will never receive the satisfaction of hearing a pope teach ex cathedra heresy.

Yet, he has throughout the centuries found from experience that an awful lot of chaos, damage and loss of Faith can be achieved without doing so. The Pope as holder of the supreme authority on earth, possessing a universal jurisdiction, has a supreme and universal bully pulpit. He can change people’s minds and hearts without acting officially and definitively as teacher of the universal Church. As a wise priest once told me, the devil doesn’t care how he gets souls as long as he gets them. The nineteenth century witnessed a new bitter struggle for the mind and soul of the Church. The heresy of Modernism sunk its teeth into the heart of the Church. Pope St. Pius X considered this heresy the greatest assault so far as it was the synthesis of all heresies. He definitively crushed the Modernists’ attempts to remake the Deposit of Faith into a Modernist Deposit of Faith. In Pascendi , he definitively condemned in whole and in part Modernist errors. He then used the pulpit of the papacy to reinforce his definitive condemnation. He purged the seminaries and offices of the Church and continued to sermonize against the Modernists throughout his papacy.

Having realized that attempts to officially change the Deposit of Faith in authoritative documents of Ecumenical Councils (having tried and failed twenty times), the devil evidently determined that his best hope was to transform the Second Vatican Council from an event clothed with infallibility into a giant bully pulpit—what was called a ‘pastoral council’. From this bully pulpit he could see Modernism preached or at least tolerated. Since the pastoral preaching of a Council is nothing other than the use of a bully pulpit and not the pulpit of the infallibly protected Magisterium, he realized he was not doomed to failure for the twenty-first time.

Thus, contrary to the rules of the Council itself (not to mention two centuries of customary law) the schemas of the Council that were to teach as other Councils had done were thrown into the trash can. In their place were substituted verbose (often rambling) expository documents containing no canons and no anathemas. The bully pulpit worked.

The intentionally ambiguously-worded pastoral sermons of the documents (like the intentionally ambiguously-worded declaration of Liberius) convinced most of the people that the Church had reversed long held dogmas. Of course the Church, the Bride of Christ, had not really done so but this Council, covered with great media frenzy, became a bully pulpit like no other.

For the next several decades bully pulpits were set up all over the Church, reinforcing the new message. From papal, episcopal, parish and school pulpits people were urged to accept and embrace radical changes in Faith and Liturgy. The rival bully pulpit proclamations starting from the ambiguous texts of the Council now transformed into a super Council (according to Pope Benedict XVI) drowned out centuries’ worth of definitive Church teaching. Most members of the Church thought that the loud cries of the bully pulpits must be right as they were nearly universal. This use of the bully pulpit had become a full-blown rival magisterium to the real one now drowned out by the ever longer ramblings of words and ambiguities.

Aided with the newly equipped worldwide media, the devil1 could now accomplish much more than he had by making use of St. Peter or Pope Liberius. Fifty years later, enter Pope Francis.

Unlike his immediate predecessors who exhibited some level of prudential restraint in dealing with the worldwide bully pulpit built and maintained by a global media industry, he has

1 I hope my use of the example of St. Peter has made clear that I am not suggesting that everyone using such bully pulpits is consciously and willingly working for the devil. The devil has shown himself willing to use not only overt disciples but unintentional cooperators. Thus, with reference to all the Fathers of Vatican II or Pope Francis himself I am not intending to argue that any of them is intentionally doing the devil’s work. I leave to God to read the intentions of the heart. The devil may use and inspire our acts in his design, a design which will ultimately fail due to God’s complete Providence.

climbed the steps to this mega bully pulpit with gusto. He seems to seek out opportunities "to speak out on any issue." From off the cuff remarks in weekday sermons, to interview on planes, to calling up atheist journalists and inviting them to tea-time chats—he drops bombshell after bombshell that never quite declare but heavily suggest massive changes to Catholic dogma and praxis. From giving communion to divorced Catholics pretending to be married to other people, to proclaiming universal salvation for all sincere atheists, to the possibility of women Deaconess Cardinals, the bully pulpit ceaselessly trumpets new possibilities.

Such events and interviews have produced reams of commentary and prognostication. Will Pope Francis accept divorce and remarriage? Will he really appoint a woman Cardinal?

In many respects the answers to these questions are utterly irrelevant. He doesn’t actually have to do any of these things. His off the cuff remarks have convinced many people that such things are possible, and, if they are possible, there is nothing wrong with treating them as good and true in principle. After all, the Pope has spoken.

Shortly after Pope Francis’ "who am I to judge" comment about homosexuality, I heard a Catholic priest on National Public Radio predict that such comments will directly affect what people hear in local parish pulpits on Sunday. He said he would have been afraid to say what the pope said on this issue before but now people can say it from the pulpit, citing the Pope himself.

Another example proving the negative effect of these papal remarks is the divorce issue. Almost instantly after Pope Francis’ off the cuff remarks the bishops of Germany move forward with a "pastoral" plan to allow Catholics living with people not their spouses to receive the sacraments. The message from the bully pulpit was heard and acted upon.

Thus, I think any speculation on what Pope Francis might do or not do officially is in the long run unimportant.

Like the ambiguities of Vatican II, like the ambiguous declaration of Liberius, like the excommunication of St. Athanasius, like St. Peter’s avoiding eating with non-Jewish Christians, the messages of the alternate Magisterium of the bully pulpit will continue to have their effect. The only way to put an end to the bully pulpit is to once again take up the charism of infallibility and restate Catholic truth with unambiguous clarity in clear acts of the extraordinary Magisterium. This is what the Church had to do to finally end the Arian heresy. The Council of Constantinople which codified the Nicean Creed finally silenced the bully pulpits of Arianism.

From what we’ve see thus far, alas, this does not seem to be in the cards for the current pontificate. v

www.RemnantNewspaper.com ~ THE REMNANT