ARTICLES
September 2005 ARTICLES
Contents © 2005
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
Abuse of Power
Father Messenger's Message
BY JOHN ECK
Editor's note: The following is the first in a series of occasional articles that will focus on clergy, religious, and other interesting Catholic personalities in Southern and Central California.
An apostle is a messenger, but not every messenger is an apostle -- at least an authentic apostle of Catholic truth.
Thus one would not be off base, at least, in questioning the bona fides of the Los Angeles archdiocese's messen ger to the University of Southern California -- Father William "Bill" Messenger. Far from being a character from Pilgrim's Progress, Messenger is the honest-to-goodness name of USC's Catholic chaplain and pastor of the university's Our Savior Catholic Center, the man who, theoretically at least, is the Catholic presence at an otherwise secular university. (At least he was until April, when he was placed on administrative leave by the archdiocese and the university for alleged "inappropriate physical conduct" with an adult, as Jenny Schwartzkopf, religious director of the university's Catholic Student Association, put it. But more of this anon.)
What is Father Messenger's message?
Only a short time before being placed on administrative leave, Father Messenger gave his thoughts to the Daily Trojan (April 4) on the then-upcoming papal election. The University of Southern California student paper asked Father Messenger what his hopes were for a new pope. He answered that "a characteristic he would like to see in the new pope is that he be more moderate, theologically."
While this reply was not recounted in Messenger's own words, it would not be a surprising utterance for the 55-year-old priest who, since 1993, has served as USC's campus minister for Catholics students. William Messenger is himself, to put it mildly, more moderate than the late Pope John Paul II. In fact, Messenger is so moderate that one might question the fittingness of the epithet as applied to him. For Messenger is moderate without measure.
This comes out in the various essays written by Messenger and posted to the web page of the USC Catholic Center. These essays are all over twenty years old, but the fact that they appear on the center's website suggests that Messenger still approves of them.
One essay appeared in the October 16, 1981 National Catholic Reporter under the headline, "Science Challenges Humanae Vitae." It argues that the Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception is flat wrong. Indeed, says the younger Messenger, the Church's teaching in this regard is not even "truly authentic" since it "restrict[s] itself to the purely theological" and allegedly ignores biological science and experience (though how these could serve to elucidate the apostolic tradition, Messenger doesn't say.)
Messenger is less than clear on the Church's teaching on the purpose and nature of sexual intercourse. He sets forth two presuppositions which, he says, "which will be operative throughout the discussion" of the Church's teaching on sex and contraception. His first "presupposition" that "procreation is not the sole purpose of sexual intercourse" is so stated as to set it in opposition to Church teaching, though the Church has said that procreation is the primary, not the sole, purpose of sexual intercourse. Anyhow, Messenger rejects Church teaching as basically moronic because, as he says, most sexual acts do not result in procreation. (Presumably, Messenger would say that oak trees do not produce and drop acorns to propagate the species, since the vast majority of acorns do not grow into oak trees. Too, the purpose of sperm must not be to fertilize ova, since even in the best circumstances, only one sperm out of millions does the job.) But, be that as it may, Father Messenger gives "two other legitimate reasons for engaging in sexual intercourse" -- reasons that are at least equal to that of procreation. "The first is love," writes Messenger. The other is "simply for sex play."
Messenger's "second presupposition" is "sexuality and marriage are not coextensive," which, he writes, "is based on what is perceived to be the purpose of marriage." He does not say by whom this is perceived, but the purpose of marriage, according to Messenger, "is to express the fullness of human life and love." This purpose is "ultimately accomplished through generation." But, according to Messenger, generation is to be distinguished from procreation; it is "much wider in its scope."
In order to "express the fullness of human life and love" a couple may use artificial contraception, according to Messenger. By marriage they have made the "fundamental option" to express this fullness; thus any reason to forgo procreation for a time, as long as it is ultimately generative, is sufficient. There may be times, says Messenger, when "the appearance of a child too early in marriage may frustrate the development of the fundamental option," and thus not be generative of the "fullness of human life and love." Or, realizing that the world is becoming overpopulated (in Messenger's mind a scientific fact which the Church ignores), a couple may decide to be generative of sustainability and practice contraception to limit their family size. In sum, Messenger says, "because the couple has decided to enter a union which will reflect the fullness of human life and love as we have discussed it, contraception will be seen to be morally bad and therefore sinful or not, only insofar as it expresses and builds or denies and restricts the fundamental option."
It is perhaps unclear how the purpose of marriage according to Messenger differs from the purpose of two people who are just shacked up, or even of the religious life or the priesthood. Are not all in the Church, married and celibate, to express the fullness of human life and love? But perhaps they are, and this expression is the fundamental option for all Christians. And, maybe, if "a particular instance of sexual intercourse," though contraceptive, does not "negate my basic decision in marriage," perhaps a particular instance of sexual intercourse would not negate one's basic decision to become a priest. But, of course, this is something Messenger does not say.
In a 1981 essay, "Celibacy-A Diocesan View," posted on the Catholic Center website, Messenger emphasizes the point that celibacy is not essential to the priesthood in order to argue that diocesan priests should be free to choose celibacy or marriage. Diocesan priests, he points out, unlike religious, do not take a vow but make a promise of celibacy. He then protests that requiring such a promise of diocesan clergy is an "abuse of power" on the part of the Church. And writes Father Messenger: "I, for one, did not choose celibacy. I chose priesthood and accepted celibacy because there was no choice. I do not consider myself to have been free. There was simply no other way to be ordained. And even in accepting celibacy, it was not a vow. The distinction between vow and promise is perhaps more important than is immediately evident...." But if celibacy is an imposition made on one who does not freely choose it and is an abuse of power, is it binding -- especially when violating it does not undermine the "fundamental option" of the priesthood? Father Bill does not say.
If Father Messenger seems too dismissive of the discipline of clerical celibacy it may be only because he seems to see himself as possessing a peculiar charism. In an essay posted to the Catholic Center website, "The Holy Spirit and the Ordination of Women," Messenger argues the chic position that ordination is open to women; it's just that those old fuddy-duddies in the Vatican can't see it. But Father Messenger can see it, because he apparently knows the mind of the Holy Spirit. "It is my contention,"he writes, "that the Holy Spirit has already answered the question about the ordination of women and that the Spirit has spoken in the affirmative." This magisterial utterance is based on Father's reading of the Gospel of St. John and on a single line from Vatican II's decree on the ministry of priests, Ordinis Presbyterorum.
As it turns out (according to Father Messenger), the council fathers really allowed for women's ordination, though they didn't realize it. Father's conciliar proof text (as he expresses it) reads as follows: "priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have as their primary duty the proclamation of the gospel of God to all." But, Father continues, in John 4, the Samaritan woman at the well, after hearing Jesus, proclaims to her neighbors that He is the Messiah; and Our Lord Himself tells Mary Magdalene to announce the resurrection to the disciples. "What Jesus sends Mary Magdalene to proclaim is the core of Christian belief," says Father Messenger. "It is precisely what the council Fathers understood and decreed to be the primary work of the priest."
Unfortunately, Father Bill does not give his proof text in context, nor does he quote it accurately. He doesn't even quote the whole sentence, which reads: "Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all." This does not say the primary duty of priests is to proclaim the Gospel, but that the duty of proclaiming the Gospel belongs first to priests. It certainly does not say that all who proclaim the Gospel are priests by that very fact.
Given the allegation of sexual misconduct against him, Father Messenger's future influence on Catholic students at USC will be at least minimal (his essays and contact information still remain on the Catholic Center website.) Both the archdiocese of Los Angeles and the University of Southern California have not released the name or even the sex of the alleged victim, though, according to the May 3 Los Angeles Times, "other sources said a male USC student brought the complaint." Former FBI investigators were hired by the archdiocese to look into the allegations against Messenger, and the results of the investigation will go to the Clergy Misconduct Oversight Board. The board will recommend not only whether Messenger should return to USC but even whether he should continue to function as a priest at all.