What is Sacred Tradition?

SCRIPTURE ON TRADITION

Scripture speaks both negatively and positively about the idea of "tradition." For example, negatively––

And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition (paradosis)! (Mark 7:9)

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition (paradosis), according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. (Col. 2:8)

––and positively:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (paradosis) even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor. 11:2)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thes. 2:15)

TRADITIONS OF FAITH VS. PRACTICE

In Catholic theology, there is a distinction between traditions on matters of faith and traditions on matters of practice or custom. If a tradition is considered a matter of faith or morals, handed down from the single "deposit of faith" left by Christ and the Apostles, it is considered a divinely revealed truth, and thus cannot be recognized as a non-truth at some later point. Other traditions do not fall under this umbrella of faith or morals. For example, it can be considered "tradition" that the priest wears certain colored vestments at certain times of the year. This is not a matter of faith that one must "believe," but it is a customary practice the Church exercises. The language of the mass is another example of a "tradition" that can be altered. Recently, the translation of the American vernacular mass changed to more closely reflect the ancient Latin wording. Catechism #1202 refers to the "diverse liturgical traditions" in the Church.

In this particular blog post, I will focus on Sacred Tradition, that is considered by the Church part of the word of God in divine revelation.

DESCRIPTIONS OF TRADITION

I think the following are useful descriptions of or uses of the term "tradition" in the sense of Sacred Tradition. My comments follow each entry.

[W]hen we refer [the Gnostics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. ... It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, ca. 180 A.D.)

In the above work, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, defends the Church's capacity to maintain tradition versus the Gnostics who simply assert that they have special "wisdom" (3.2.1) from God. Rather, apostolic tradition is passed through those whom were appointed by the Apostles. Irenaeus later went on to identify lists of succession for the occupants of various bishops' offices.

Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, 32.1, ca. 200 A.D.)

Tertullian, a few years after Irenaeus combats the same problem, against heretics claiming to possess the truth, but who have no apostolic roots.

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9, ca. 248 A.D.).

Origen's comment here is an example of what is probably the most commonly held notion of "Tradition," that which is orally transmitted. Some 150-160 years removed from the death of the last Apostle, he describes that infant baptism was something taught by the apostles.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. [St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 2.6, ca. 434 A.D.)

Note how St. Vincent describes the meaning of a "universal" belief. It does not necessarily mean a hard and fast 100% perfect unity on a doctrine. He speaks rather of a corporate voice of sorts, and that voice comes from among clergy and doctors of the Church. And if we go through time and see a teaching professed consistently, exceptions notwithstanding, then the Church can have confidence that the Spirit is guiding that voice. As we will see further down, it is ultimately the Spirit that reveals, which is what makes Sacred Tradition part of divine revelation rather than the "human" traditions that bear no such character. Notice also, that St. Vincent includes "interpretations" as part of Tradition. For example, it is quite universally held in the early Church that John 3:5, which references being "born of water and spirit" is a reference to baptism.

[The Synod recognizes the Gospel] as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. (Council of Trent, Session IV, April 8, 1546)

Notice at Trent, the notion that the Spirit ("Holy Ghost") is guiding Tradition is also mentioned. And like Irenaeus or Tertullian's ancient comment's, Trent refers to the preservation of Tradition by way of "succession."

Some of them had been originally written; others came to us orally, from father to son; or in a practical way, as through the ceremonies of the Church for instance. For this reason, Traditions are either written, oral or practical. Some Traditions are called Written Traditions because the word Tradition may be taken in its widest signification, to include whatever has been delivered to us. In this sense, even the Scriptures may be called Traditions. (Msgr. George Agius, Tradition and the Church, p.3, 1928)

Msgr. Agius' comments here demonstrate that Tradition need not take only one form. Whether they be an oral transmission, a liturgical practice, or "whatever" has been delivered, such as the Church's passing on and discernment of the Scriptures, these are all traditions.

Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. (Dei Verbum #7, 1965)

Dei Verbum, a document produced at Vatican II, echoes the diversity of methods of transmission. Sometimes on internet forums, inquisitors ask for a "list" of Sacred Tradition. This is, of course, near impossible to exhaust because the Church continues to mature in Her interpretations, understandings, and the voice of the Spirit continues to guide the Church toward "all truth" (John 16:13) revealed. Nevertheless, the Catholic lay person need not enter a state of agnosticism or confusion. The Church has produced a number of catechisms throughout the years to help the faithful. Pope John Paul II said of the current Catechism: "I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." Though the Spirit may move the Church to update the Catechism through the years, the faithful can have confidence in assenting and learning the Church's doctrines from its pages.

And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. (CCC#81)

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. (CCC#83)

The above two Catechism paragraphs fortify a couple thoughts. First, that Sacred Tradition can also be considered the "word" of God. It is divine revelation because it is the "Spirit" who reveals it. Second, the assembly and transmission of the New Testament represents Tradition as well.

SCRIPTURE AS TRADITION

There was not total agreement on what books were divinely inspired. For instance, Origen referred to "doubt" that Peter even wrote a second epistle:

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,' Matthew 16:18 has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful. (Origen, quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.8)

Eusebius himself doubted the divinely inspired nature of even more books, and claimed some of his predecessors did too:

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.3-4)

So these are just a couple examples. Suffice it to say, any Christian who accepts the divinely inspired quality of James, Jude, 2nd Peter, Revelation, or any book of Scripture, rely on the Church's Sacred Tradition to have identified them. These examples also show how unanimity, as described above by St. Vincent, need not be total uniformity. We believe the Spirit will guide the Church to discern such things amidst disagreement, just as the Spirit did at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (esp. v. 28).

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

I just want to finish up with a brief word on the concept of doctrinal development. A couple historical treatments of the idea come to mind. One is St. Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium in the section: On Development of Christian Knowledge. The other is Bl. John Henry Newman's essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

As the Catechism noted, Tradition is "living." The single deposit of faith does not remain a static list of doctrinal data that cannot be more deeply understood over time. Rather, we can see the Church's deeper understanding of text within Scripture itself. For instance, in Genesis, the serpent is never identified as the devil. Yet by the time John wrote his Apocalypse, he explictly calls the ancient serpent the devil (cf. Rev. 12:9; 20:2). The episode of the flood is later understood by Peter as a prefigurement of baptism (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18-21). Paul recognizes the lives of the persons Hagar and Sarah in the Old Testament as figures of two covenants (cf. Gal. 4). Newman's essay has its own section of Scriptural examples as well. The ancient texts didn't acquire new words, but these NT authors saw them in a new light. Rather, their understanding of the ancient texts developed.

As I earlier referenced, Christ promised that the Spirit would lead the Church to "all truth" (John 16:13). One might ask, how can this be now that the last apostle has died, and all Scripture has been written. Even the Church says all doctrine is derived "from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (Dei Verbum, 10b; emphasis mine) One might think of the deposit organically. Although an acorn is once small, it becomes a great tree over time. Scripture tells us that the Apostles and prophets were a "foundation." (e.g. Eph. 2:20) The concept of a foundation is, of course, to be built upon. In the same way, a doctrine cannot be formulated unless it is built upon the single deposit. In other words, novel ideas that don't build upon the existing foundation cannot stand.

Consider also Christ's "body" as the figure of the Church. On more than one occasion, Paul called the Church Christ's "body." (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:24) Throughout Ephesians, Paul has this organic idea of "growth" and references to the body of Christ. Keep that concept in mind and consider another passage regarding the young Jesus.

And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:52)

If the Church resembles the incarnate Christ, then the Church too will grow in wisdom as well as in size. The Church can be said to follow stages of life, having a youth, and maturing in wisdom over the years. I think a couple theologians support this interpretation of the Luke verse:

The word also increases in different degrees in those who receive it; and according to the measure of its increase a man appears either an infant, grown up, or a perfect man. (St. Gregory of Nyssa, comment on Luke 2:52, quoted in Catena Aura)

Tropologically, Damascene (De fide, 1 iii c. xxii.) says that Christ progresses in wisdom and grace, not in Himself, but in His members, that is, in Christians. (Cornelius Lapide, commentary on Luke 2:52)

Public Debate: Did Christ redeem all mankind?

Recently, I wrapped up a public, formal debate called "Particular Atonement" at the Christian Forums. I post there as "MrPolo." My position is that Christ's sacrifice made ransom for all mankind in their futile bondage to sin (i.e. Unlimited Atonement). In other words, when Scripture says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16) I understand the "world" and "whoever" to mean all persons in humanity.

The other gentleman in the debate took a "5-point" Calvinist's position, which says God ordains some to heaven and some to hell, and Christ's sacrifice was therefore limited in effect only to those who go to heaven (i.e. Limited or Particular Atonement). In other words, when Scripture says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16) he understands the "world" and "whoever" to mean only persons God ordains to heaven without regard to any response, merit, or attribute in those persons.

View the debate here.

Merry Christmas. :)

Related post: See the papacy debate here.

If your football team loses, it doesn't mean God doesn't love you

Yesterday, the Chicago Bears, for whom I was fully rooting, lost in overtime to the Denver Broncos whose quarterback is outspoken Christian Tim Tebow. The Broncos were down 10-0 late in the fourth quarter. The Bears went into what is known as the "prevent defense" which makes it easier for the other team to advance the ball, but prevents a "big play" because so many of the defenders are deep. Denver took advantage of the Bears unwise strategy and marched right down the field in medium chunks for a touchdown. Still up 10-7, the Bears got the onside kick and started to run the ball to waste the remaining 2 minutes or so. Unfortunately, Bears running back Marion Barber ran the football out of bounds on one of the plays, which stopped the clock. This ended up leaving more time for Denver to come back the other way after the Bears punted. Without Barber's error, Denver would only have had a few seconds. At any rate, Denver got the last-second field goal to tie the game. And in overtime, they took advantage of a Barber fumble on 3rd down, which would have otherwise lead to a Bears field goal attempt to win the game. Instead, Denver kicked the winning field goal.

Dan Bernstein, radio host of 670 the Score here in Chicago and CBSChicago.com senior columnist, wrote scathingly about this game in his column today. He was not mad about the Bears prevent defense. He was not mad at Marion Barber.

He was mad at God.

The headline? Tim Tebow’s God Is Mean.

Normally, I might find Bernstein's rant against God to be a bit of sarcasm, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, because the outspoken Christian's team won the game thanks to at least a couple favors the Bears gave them rather than earning the advantages themselves. But Bernstein has been hostile against Tebow on his radio show in the past. I have heard him mock Tebow in a caricature of a voice crediting God for his situation.

Bernstein's column yesterday is no different. The tone is condescending, angry, and anti-Christian. It bears the fury of Dracula in the face of a crucifix. His irrational reaction is not just about Tebow. He includes some standard secular criticisms: "We knew the Old Testament god was kind of a jerk – that’s well established" (lowercase "god" appears as original in Bernstein's article).

To a secularist such as Bernstein (who offered all but zero sports analysis in his sports column), it seems that the "goodness" of God is directly measured by "how often I get what I want." The premise of his article is to mock the goodness of God if Bears fans suffer. God is measured by temporal rewards only.

He shows no concept of the eternal promises of Christianity, verses the suffering that even Christians will endure. To educate those who do not understand the "Biblical God" very well, the Catechism responds and anticipates the difficulties of the human condition in the face of any suffering (even if it's being mad over one's football team).

CCC#272 Faith in God the Father Almighty can be put to the test by the experience of evil and suffering. God can sometimes seem to be absent and incapable of stopping evil. But in the most mysterious way God the Father has revealed his almighty power in the voluntary humiliation and Resurrection of his Son, by which he conquered evil. Christ crucified is thus "the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." It is in Christ's Resurrection and exaltation that the Father has shown forth "the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe".

Suffering itself is ordered toward the resurrection. Christ leads the way, accepting suffering in perfect innocence, showing us that if we join him, we will be raised to glory. St. Paul writes: "Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Rom. 8:17)

The Christian's view of suffering, or even the afflictions suffered by those in the Old Testament by the permission of the "god" that Bernstein calls a "jerk," is totally alien to the secularist understanding of goodness. After all, if Christ indeed paved the way, and taught us that the way to an eternity of joy is to suffer with Christ, then God isn't a jerk, He's a leader. And He loves you. If a father tells his child the importance of learning math, but the child isn't at a stage yet where he can understand why, the child's perspective doesn't trump the father's.

Whether or not on this side of heaven's gate we come to a full understanding of suffering is not enough to dismiss the example first set by God incarnate. Now, no doubt, many secularists deny that Christ is the God-man. But the fact remains, if Christ is indeed God incarnate, and He implores us to unite to His body to join Him in the heavenly banquet, then the secularist is completely wrong. Only if the man known as Jesus the Christ was the greatest con man in history could rants like Bernstein's be accurate. But unfortunately, he did not have the space, or perhaps not the consideration to articulate to his audience why that might be the case.

So, I can only invite Bernstein and others who believe a "good" God is one who "makes your sports team win," to refrain from shooting poison darts from your tongue, and give matters of the faith a sober analysis. You don't even have to "like" Tebow's open style of evangelism. And I'm sure there are unbelievers who feel they have given the faith due consideration, and yet do not become furious when their football team loses to opponents with Christian players. Approaching any claim with such emotional staccato can hinder an objective analysis. Rather, give pause, do otherwise, and see what the Church has to offer!

See also the March 11, 2011 article Should earthquakes shake faith in God?

The ironic theology of "Barabbas"

Those familiar with Christian history know the name Barabbas. He is the criminal given freedom, instead of Christ, during Christ's trial before Pilate. All four Gospels mention Barabbas (Matthew 27:15-22; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:18-21; and here is John's account as an example:

But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?" They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barab'bas!" Now Barab'bas was a robber. (John 18:39-40)

Something occurred to me the other day about Barabbas' name. In the passage when Jesus changes Peter's name from Simon to Peter (Matt. 16:16-19), Peter leads by declaring Christ to be the "Son of God." Christ returns the label and calls him "Simon Bar-Jona." The root "Bar" there refers to "son of" so-and-so. Essentially, in response to "you are Son of God," Jesus says back to Peter, "you are son of Jonah." Bar means "son" in Aramaic. Even today, Jewish custom preserves the term in "Bar Mitzvah" which means "son of the commandment."

So quite literally, Barabbas' name means "Son of Abba." And Abba of course means "Father" in Aramaic. Jesus and Paul both used the phrase "Abba, Father" in reference to God the Father. The Dictionary of the Bible says Abba is an "Aramaic emphatic form of 'ab, "father", employed as a vocative."¹ Barabbas' name quite literally translates to "son of the father."

On Mark's reference to Barabbas, the Ignatius Study Bible states:

Barabbas: An Aramaic name that literally means "son of the father". Aramaic-speaking Christians surely detected the tragic irony: the guilty Barabbas is released in place of Jesus, the truly innocent Son of the Father.²

There is an aspect of theology that recognizes the devil as an "imitator." For instance, Paul says the devil will perform "pretended signs and wonders" (2 Thes. 2:9). Yet true "signs and wonders" are properly the gift of God (e.g. Ps 135:9; Dan. 4:2; Acts 5:12; Heb. 2:4). St. Leo the Great said the devil is an "unwearied imitator."³

All of this points toward the great irony of Barabbas being freed in place of Christ. The guilty imitation, the false "son of the father" is released. The true Son of the heavenly Father is innocently sent to death. In Barabbas' name, we can see the diabolical delusion at work in those who wrongly choose the false "son of the father" to solve a problem.

This is something that can be applied to daily life. In our choices, do we choose what is good and true? Or do we delude ourselves and choose the false imitation to try justify our decisions? This is the irony of Barabbas!

¹McKenzie, John L., S.J. Dictionary of the Bible. Touchstone. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. 1.

²Mitch, Curtis (Compiler) and Hahn, Scott (editor), Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament, 2nd Catholic Edition RSV, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2010. 95.

³St. Leo the Great, Sermon 36.2

More reason to withhold judgment on Paterno?

New developments in Penn State sex abuse case
To summarize my previous blog post on the Penn State abuse scandal (Joe Paterno: Scapegoat?):

In 2002, Mike McQueary, then graduate assistant at Penn State University was said in a Grand Jury Report to have witnessed Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State assistant coach, raping a 10 year old boy in the campus showers. The report said McQueary first contacted his own father, and then Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno the next day. The following day, a Sunday, Paterno took the matter to the Athletic Director Tim Curley who conducted an investigation with Senior Finance VP Gary Schultz. Paterno has come under tremendous fire from various news media sources and angry combox contributers throughout the internet for not reporting the incident to on-campus police or public authorities based on McQueary's testimony. My general sentiments as of Friday, as seen in the link above, were to give pause and not incriminate Paterno based on a variety of facts, including what information Paterno was basing his decisions at the time.

Now, let's continue our thought exercise prior to formulating opinions, if we should even choose to formulate an opinion on this matter. I still think those who are harshly condemning Paterno as an accomplice to sex abuse cover-up are still making that claim in the absence of incriminating evidence.

Earlier today, an email from McQueary was leaked (which is another story altogether) to the public. The email is dated Nov. 8. In it, McQueary comments on the 2002 shower incident:

I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me.

As has been noted elsewhere in the media, the Grand Jury Report denies that McQueary spoke with on-campus police. It stated:

[T]he graduate assistant was never questioned by University Police and no other entity conducted an investigation until he testified in Grand Jury in December 2010.

Regarding Paterno, consider the following. If McQueary had spoken to on-campus police, and Paterno knew this fact, and yet went to the AD in addition to McQueary's interaction with on-campus police, then it would seem those who have condemned Paterno for keeping this from police officials of any kind have rushed to judgment and owe Paterno an apology.

On the other hand, let's say McQueary's email is inaccurate and the Grand Jury Report is accurate. Assume McQueary did not speak with on-campus police. Then we move onto the next statement in the email. McQueary says he also spoke "with the official at the university in charge of on-campus police." According to the New York Daily News, the on-campus police supervisor was Gary Schultz, the SVP of Finance, who looked into the matter with AD Curley according to the Grand Jury Report. If Paterno was aware that the supervisor of on-campus police was involved in the investigation, then, again, those who criticized Paterno for deliberately not involving any police officials are mistaken and owe Paterno an apology because the supervisor of on-campus police was already involved.

On first hearing about the email, I thought that skeptics might quickly say it was just Paterno or his supporters coercing McQueary to drum up evidence after the fact. However, McQueary's email is dated November 8, two days before Paterno was fired by Penn State. In the email, McQueary also states he was told by "officials to not say anything." It is unclear if that is a reference to officials at Penn State or otherwise. If this email is authentic, is it more of an indicator that Paterno was used as a scapegoat?

Meanwhile, Sandusky has claimed innocence in a television interview. And his lawyer spoke confidently that the identified victim in the 2002 case has denied being abused by Sandusky.

The matter of justice

Remember, in the last post, I cited the Catechism and the essential meaning of justice:

Justice - The cardinal moral virtue which consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and to neighbor. (CCC glossary)

I think this principle should be the driving force of a good Catholic, or anyone who seeks to formulate just opinions when they speak of others, or even interact with loved ones, friends, and acquaintances. I saw a decent article over the weekend from November 11 that I think leant itself well to that principle.

Christine M. Flowers, an attorney, wrote the article Back off from Joe Paterno: It's too soon, and unfair, to rush to trash his legacy. She makes it clear that she would be ready to recognize that if it was found out that Paterno was negligent of permitting child abuse to occur, that "God would probably mete out a stiffer sentence than the good people of the Keystone State" on him. However, she does not believe there is enough evidence at this time to incriminate Paterno.

As evidence of Paterno's character, she cited a 2007 incident.

Back in 2007, a member of the Nittany Lions squad was charged with raping a Penn State coed. Austin Scott was ultimately acquitted, and, of course, nothing happened to the woman who accused him. Scott, on the other hand, was kicked off the football team by Paterno. That's because the coach has a very strict sense of what is moral and ethical, which gives us some idea about whether he would have knowingly ignored evidence of sexual molestation.

Now a person's behavior at one time does not automatically reveal what his behavior was at another time. Yet I think Flowers' point stands here. There is reason to give pause. Combox comments from when this story first broke like "[Paterno] has shown to be a failure morally and only did the legally correct thing to protect HIMSELF!!!!" seem unwarranted based on the evidence publicly known. Is it not proper to give neighbors their "due"?

EDIT 11/17/11: Attorney Anthony Collelouri on November 8 also brought up the fact that Schultz was the on-campus police supervisor, and presented a legal and ethical defense of Paterno.

Joe Paterno: Scapegoat?

This blog post is regarding the Penn State sexual abuse scandal involving perpetrator Jerry Sandusky, but more specifically, the rhythmic, tribal outcry condemning the school's famous head football coach, Joe Paterno. For instance, writers Bennett L. Gershman and Joel Cohen appearing at the Huffington Post wrote earlier this evening:

"Joe Paterno...knew about Jerry Sandusky, allegedly a sexual predator who horribly raped young boys in the football locker room and shower, but did nothing." (Emphasis mine)

One need only read the comboxes beneath related web stories for more extreme rhetoric and bombast condemning Coach Paterno.

Now, in order for the reader to grasp what I'm going to say here, I have to ask that you try to suspend from your mind the information that is available today regarding the Penn State sex abuse scandal. It is all to easy for 20/20 hindsight to take over and condemn a man based on evidence that surfaced after the criticized action in question. Try to transplant yourself into the past as the details unfolded in reality. Consider possible scenarios consistent with what is known. Take this thought exercise with me.

The key document in all this is a 23-page Grand Jury Report (released November 5, 2011) on Jerry Sandusky's crimes. Despite the media frenzy that has called for Paterno's head and questioned his moral integrity, Paterno is mentioned in the Report just a few times. And not all of these are in relation to what detail of abuse, and how credible it was at the time, then-28-year-old graduate assistant Mike McQueary relayed to Paterno. As the Wall Street Journal noted earlier today: "It isn't clear from conflicting reports whether that graduate assistant told Mr. Paterno the ugly details of the sexual assault that is described in the grand jury report."

Here is the key excerpt from the Grand Jury Report that references Paterno's involvement.

[The document describes in horrific detail what McQueary reported about a pedophile rape in a school shower.] [McQueary] telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen. (page 7)

At this point, the document does not tell us if the description reported at that time matched the disturbing details that preceded in the Report. The subsequent text suggests otherwise:

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.

Paterno is not mentioned again until later. Here are a few more details from the Report.

• According to Curley, that McQueary described the shower incident as Sandusky and the youth "horsing around." Curley elsewhere denied that McQueary reported "'sexual conduct' 'of any kind'" having taken place. (page 8)
• The school president Graham Spanier reportedly said that he learned Sandusky and the boy "were horsing around in the shower." He denied that he was told that the incident was "sexual in nature." (page 10)
• Another member of the school, Gary Schultz, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, became involved with Curley's investigation. According to Schultz's testimony, "he and Curley 'had no indication that a crime had occurred.'" Schultz also suggested that he understood the incident to have been Sandusky and the youth "wrestling." (page 9)
• The Report later identifies the school's obligation by law to have reported suspected child abuse. It also states: "The Grand Jury finds that Tim Curley made a materially false statement under oath in an official proceeding on January 12, 2011.." and "[T]he Grand jury finds that Gary Schultz made a materially false statement under oath in an official proceeding on January 12, 2011..." (page 12)

Now, consider the following. It remains unclear what were the nature of details McQueary told Paterno. Paterno, on a Sunday, brought McQueary's report to the attention of his own superior, Curley. Curley then conducted an investigation with Schultz. Their testimony was determined by the Grand Jury to contain falsehoods.

Before we condemn Coach Paterno then, are there not a number of questions that are relevant? First, is what cause did Paterno have to assume the subsequent investigation conducted by Curley and Schultz would be incompetent or dishonest? I've yet to see anyone in the media ask that question, much less provide an answer.

Second, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier all told the Grand Jury that they did not determine any sexual conduct to have taken place in the showers that night. So if they were willing to tell that to a Grand Jury, then might they have told Coach Paterno the same thing back in 2002? And if so, what cause had Paterno to assume they had colluded to protect Sandusky? After all, if one reads the Report, Paterno's involvement was limited. Primarily, he was the one who brought the incident to the attention of university officials.

Third, even according to the Grand Jury Report, it seems McQueary used varying language as to what he saw in the showers. On pages 6-7, the Report indicates without qualification that McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a boy. But on page 7, the Report reads "he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky [raping] a boy..." Between these variations and talk of "wrestling" or "horsing around" that was espoused by the other university officials, is it possible that Paterno did not feel McQueary truly saw sexual misconduct?

Remember, suspend your 20/20 hindsight for a moment and consider such details contained in the report.

Now, if one wants to say Paterno "could have done more," one merely agrees with what Paterno said recently in light of the revelation of Sandusky's apparent guilt. "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more," Paterno said. And who wouldn't say that in light of what is known now.

So can one say Paterno should have ignored the conclusions of his superiors and brought this to the police anyway? Let's say the answer to that is yes, he should have done "more." Paterno was fired by the University on Wednesday. Paterno did not witness the crime. McQueary, the actual witness, neither took the matter beyond school officials even after they did not report Sandusky to the police themselves. Yet McQueary, as of the time of this post, retains his job and will be an assistant coach on Saturday! Curley, who spearheaded the investigation and is under investigation for perjury, is only on "administrative leave"!

So is it not a fair question: Is Joe Paterno a scapegoat? Did Penn State University use the firing of Paterno, the most famous individual in this saga, as a "big statement" to "show" that they were really taking this seriously?

And is all the rhetoric and bombast for Paterno's head the product of some other form of hatred? Is he too iconic of the old school university seen by many as a culture of exclusivist bigotry? Is there a sentiment against the sport of football altogether?

Rather can we not agree that it is possible to decry sex abuse and yet not pass excessive judgment on a man who did move the investigation forward?

And what credibility have people like The Nation magazine's sports writer Dave Zirin who recently wrote of Penn State: "[F]ootball is so valuable that children can become collateral damage"; yet on another day write an anti-Christian article on Tim Tebow that called him "anti-abortion"! And consider the opening quote from the two writers who claimed Paterno "did nothing." These are the kinds of sentiments that indicate there are other motives to criticize Paterno than that he is actually a villain.

If Paterno was the negligent, immoral villain the way many have described him, I don't think it can be said because of what is publicly known thus far. Whatever we say about Paterno, I think the Catechism's definition of "Justice" is appropriate: "Justice - The cardinal moral virtue which consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and to neighbor."

One thing is for sure, Joe Paterno's students will ever love him for all that he did for them. (Watch a group of students supporting Paterno outside his home earlier tonight.)

EDIT 11/11/11 (8:00 a.m.): Since last evening, McQueary will now not be coaching on the field on Saturday––however, not because he is being punished, but because he is being preserved from "multiple threats." According to Penn State officials: "Due to multiple threats made against Assistant Coach Mike McQueary, the University has decided it would be in the best interest of all for Assistant Coach McQueary not to be in attendance at Saturday's Nebraska game."

EDIT 11/11/11 (1:23 p.m.): It was also reported that a lawyer representing the victims in this case has expressed disapproval on behalf of his clients that Paterno was fired. He is quoted:

"The board of trustees got it wrong. They should have consulted the victims before making a decision on Mr. Paterno...They should have considered these victims watch TV and are aware of the students' reaction and may not want to be associated with the downfall of Mr. Paterno. The school instead elected to do what it felt was in its own best interest at the time. Isn’t that what put the school in this position in the first place?"

If that is the case, one would think even the victims, at this point, do not believe Paterno's actions warranted his dismissal.