Reflecting on criticism, especially criticism of "the church," I notice that there are three tendencies. Some are sentinels, ever on the watch, guarding against any critical word. They defend even the indefensible. Or, in egregious cases, they become sphinx-like, gloomily silent.***

A second tendency is Aaron's, a trap into which many, myself included, often fall. It is easy to blame "the bishops" or "the Roman Curia" for decisions we do not like, but it is not so easy to voice our legitimate criticisms directly and constructively to those who make those decisions. Nor is it easy to formulate effective solutions as part of a dialogue with decision makers, or at least to do all in our power toward that end. Blaming them is simpler. But blame, while cathartic, is rarely creative. It may serve to determine who was responsible for past events, but often fails to move toward constructing avenues that will lead to a new future. The Aaron group readily shifts responsibility to others, but rarely accepts responsibility itself.

That is precisely what the third group, the Moses group, tries to do. Unlike the first group, it is not afraid to voice criticisms; unlike the second, it does so as a full member of the church. Something that has struck me over the years is that so many great 20th-century theologians, like Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar openly voiced their complaints to "the church I love." They wrote from within rather than from without. Today too, during the ongoing crisis of the church in the United States, many of its critics are faithful Catholics who speak out because they love the church and are eager for it to grow, to move beyond the present tragic events and to reform the structures that contributed to them. (emphasis supplied)

Basically, it takes lots of courage to speak, to write and to persevere in expressing the truth with love. But just as Paul withstood Peter when "he was clearly in the wrong" (Gal 2:11), the church has always had, and continues to need, loyal critics. ***

Are there ways in which critics from within might more readily be heard? Would more frequent diocesan synods provide the opportunity for lay men and women to speak out more easily? Would more collegial synods of bishops provide the same opportunity for members of the hierarchy and other church representatives at such gatherings? Could there be broader consultation, with more lay people included, prior to the selection of bishops? Could more lay men and women be members of the congregations of the Roman Curia and, as such, advisors to the pope? Could new processes be devised to gather clearer information about what lay people think concerning important church issues? I sense that in the rather painful contemporary situation, it is imperative to invent new ways of fuller participation for all.

There is a tendency for those in authority to surround themselves with like-minded people. That becomes dangerous when the voices reaching authorities tell them only what they want to hear and label critics as “disloyal.” But ironically, critics are sometimes the church’s most loyal members. ***

It is a blessing that there will always be such voices within the church.