Fumble

Harrison Butker and Catholic Teaching

As you may have noticed, there has been a bit of controversy over a recent commencement address offered by Harrison Butker, a kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs of the National Football League. In the case of online feeding frenzies such as this one, I am loath to jump in. There is already so much vitriol. In this case, though, some important claims are at stake.

The occasion was thoroughly Catholic—Butker is a Catholic whose public platform rests on his outspoken Catholic claims. He was speaking at a Catholic school to primarily Catholic students, and his topic was Catholicism. So here, I would like to address his speech on those terms. On those terms, I found it deeply problematic.

This post involves some Catholic “inside baseball,” but this event has become so broadly publicized that that both Catholics and non-Catholics may have interest in the question: what did Butker say? And how well does it represent the Catholic Church?

Butker starts his speech by setting up a contrast between those who are merely Catholic (“being Catholic alone doesn't cut it,” he tells us) and those who are “authentically and unapologetically Catholic.” The rest of his speech unfolds as an exploration of the second category, with Butker offering his own life as an example. This rhetorical structure involves no conceptual contradiction of Catholic teaching, but it does involve a profound moral error from a Christian point of view. It is important to start here. 

We could talk abstractly about the virtue of humility, but it is even more striking to look at the details of a passage from the New Testament, the parable of the tax collector recorded in Luke 18.

[Jesus] then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income. But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:9-14

The fact that Butker reenacts the position of the tax collector in an earnest tone does not change the fact that this approach (although well-known in contemporary public discourse), makes no sense for a Catholic. The parable is described as being specifically directly to those who are πεποιθότας ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῖ (“trusting in themselves”), and it helps us see how important rhetoric is in this matter. What is wrong, after all, with thanking God? What is wrong with noting joyfully the ways in which God has led one into righteousness? According to Jesus, a lot. The structure of this speech embodies a way of thinking is simply antithetical to faith in God through Christ. 

My single greatest concern, then, arises not from sound bytes, but from the overall plan of the speech. This is not to say, however, that various specific lines of this speech are not problematic. 

First is the following claim: “Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail.” At first glance, this statement will be confusing to many. What is Butker talking about? Why would the U.S. Congress care about who killed Jesus? Some background that will help us make sense of it. 

We must recall a long history in Christianity of describing “the Jews” as those responsible for  Jesus’ death. At first glance, the claim itself is curious, since Jesus and all his first followers were Jewish, as well. Why would the Jewish identity of Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus be more determinative than Jesus’ own Jewish identity? This belief, though, has often been used to underwrite the idea that the Jews were rejected by God, and to justify antisemitism. 

The Catholic Church is not only concerned with the way the idea has been used, though; official Church teaching makes it clear that the basic claim is simply wrong. The most important statement comes in Nostra Aetate, a document of the highest authority, published in 1965: “...what happened in [Christ’s] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.”

A later document, published in 2002, makes the matter even clearer:

Any interpretation of Mark's Gospel that attempts to pin responsibility for Jesus' death on the Jewish people, is erroneous. Such an interpretation, which has had disastrous consequences throughout history, does not correspond at all to the evangelist's perspective, which, as we have said, repeatedly opposes the attitude of the people or the crowd to that of the authorities hostile to Jesus. Furthermore, it is forgotten that the disciples were also part of the Jewish people. It is a question then of an improper transfer of responsibility, of the sort that is often encountered in human history.

Surely, Butker, who is making an appeal for “authentic and unapologetic Catholicism” is not concerned that his religious freedom should give him room to repeat an error that the Catholic Church has condemned? 

Equally disquieting is Butker’s decision to give a significant portion of his speech to criticizing the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church. “There is not enough time today,” Butker says, “for me to list all the stories of priests and bishops misleading their flocks…” More specifically, he shares his conviction that “...many priests we are looking to for leadership are the same ones who prioritize their hobbies or even photos with their dogs and matching outfits for the parish directory.” 

For bishops, Butker has even more monolithic criticism, with no qualifiers like “some” or “many”:

“Our bishops once had adoring crowds of people kissing their rings and taking in their every word, but now relegate themselves to a position of inconsequential existence. Now, when a bishop of a diocese or the bishop's conference as a whole puts out an important document on this matter or that, nobody even takes a moment to read it, let alone follow it.

No. Today, our shepherds are far more concerned with keeping the doors open to the chancery than they are with saying the difficult stuff out loud. It seems that the only time you hear from your bishops is when it's time for the annual appeal, whereas we need our bishops to be vocal about the teachings of the Church, setting aside their own personal comfort and embracing their cross.”

Now anecdotally, I can say that I personally know scores of good and holy priests and even a few bishops, as well. I am tempted to question the fundamental veracity of Butler's claims. For argument’s sake, though, let’s grant that he is right, and ask how criticisms such as his should be made according to Church teaching. 

Gregory Caridi, a canon lawyer and Chancellor for the Diocese of Dallas helpfully lays out some of the most important guidelines. In brief, what the Church advises is a spirit of deep respect for its leaders. Lumen Gentium another important church document, says this:

The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church. Let them follow the example of Christ, who by His obedience even unto death, opened to all men the blessed way of the liberty of the children of God.

Criticism of the pastors of the Church, if it is leveled, would be also be governed by canon law, the essential set of norms for life in the Church. Caridi cites Canon 212, §3:

According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at times the 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, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

In his exploration of these texts, Caridi helpfully notes further that the goal of “good of the Church” would mean that “no one has a right to make public idle gossip or ad hominem comments about pastors or their personal lives which have nothing to do with the management of the Church.”

Butker’s obligations then would be at least these: (1) He should reflect carefully on the “knowledge, competence, and prestige” that might authorize him to offer his concerns. (2) He should ask whether his comments are characterized by reverence. (3) He must avoid “gossip and ad hominem comments.” 

In what sense, then, does Harrison Butker have particular knowledge of, or competence in, these matters? Consider, again, Caridi’s comments as background:

Despite the rapid increase of information in the world, actual knowledge of facts is often lacking, particularly among those who are the most vocal. When one speaks publicly, his or her obligation is elevated, and assurances should be made that the comments are in fact true and not merely hearsay. Additionally, when one speaks publicly, especially in a way as to condemn a pastor or prelate for a theological or administrative error, he or she should not do so without legitimate training and expertise in a particular field. Too often, and contrary to canon 212, do people elevate themselves to experts in fields in which they have only armchair experience. Additionally, should this knowledge or expertise actually be possessed, one should still speak with humility, recognizing that the expertise does not always shield one from error.

This description only makes it harder to see why Butker imagine that he is well-suited to take on this role of public critic.

As to whether Butker’s comments are characterized by reverence, whether they avoid ad hominem comments, I will leave it to the reader to decide. To me, the answer seems obvious.

In addition to this, there is something even more important.At the very heart of the Christian life is the commandment to “love one another.” Butker’s comments lack an essential characteristic of any speech which deserves the name of “Christian”: love for those of whom he is speaking. If Butker desires the good of these priest and bishops, if he considers them to be brothers and fathers, he gives no evidence of it.

Butker follows up with a more salutary, but also confusing set of claims: 

I say all of this not from a place of anger, as we get the leaders we deserve. But this does make me reflect on staying in my lane and focusing on my own vocation and how I can be a better father and husband and live in the world but not be of it. Focusing on my vocation while praying and fasting for these men will do more for the Church than me complaining about her leaders.

Respectfully, Butker could have considered “staying in his own lane” before he stood up and including complaints in a very public speech. If he thinks that praying and fasting are better than complaining, why didn’t he stick to those?

But Butker goes on.

He praises the school where he is speaking for returning to Catholic tradition, and then he makes a very brief claim–but just as brief as the claim is the profundity of its error. “When you embrace tradition,” he advises the graduating seniors, “success — worldly and spiritual — will follow.” Now, spiritual “success” is one thing, but “worldly success”? There is simply no way to square this claim with Catholic teaching. Nowhere does the Church teach that faithfulness or holiness will produce things like wealth, prestige, or honor. Jesus himself suggested the opposite: “In this world you will have trouble…” (John 16). 

And Christians have had trouble, trouble in small ways and trouble in the biggest ways. Christians have suffered immensely, and Christians have lost every bit of what could be called “worldly success,” in some cases precisely because they have “embraced tradition.” When we consider the great repository of holy examples, the lives of the saint, “worldly success” is strikingly rare. In many cases, in fact, the saints are best known for renouncing worldly success.

This may seem like a small thing, but the formula Butker offers is poison. It tempts Catholics to see suffering as God’s abandonment. It tempts them to imagine that those lacking worldly success as having been insufficiently faithful. The fact of the matter, though, is that, embracing Catholic tradition is smply not understood within Catholicism as a path “worldly success”--and never has been. 

Next, in what has become the most publicized part of his speech, Butker addresses the young women in the audience:

For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world… I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.

Again, there is more innuendo here than there are straightforward claims. What are these “diabolical lies?” The only hint appears in the next statement, which suggests that some significant number of the young women present are fixated on advancement and prestige in their future careers. It is a minority, though, since the “majority” are “most excited” about marriage and children. In the end, Butker leaves them with the example of his own wife, whose life “truly started” when she focused on marriage and children.

But why does Butker suggest that that it is the young women in his audience are particularly focused on “all the promotions and titles.” Wouldn’t the young men in his audience be just as likely to have such an unfortunate focus? Shouldn’t they all be reminded that this sort of focus undermines a Catholic approach to work? According to Church teaching, work is both a human right and a duty. Its purpose is the common good. Ultimately, one’s work–like all of life–is a path to worship and glorify God. Why is Butker suggesting that the young women present have this wrong?

Then, we have a conflicting claim: although some number are focused on “promotions and titles,” most of the young women present are “most excited” about marriage and children. Again, why does Butker assume this? And, more importantly, why does he suggest that this would be a good thing? Marriage, of course, can be a profoundly beautiful undertaking, particularly in its sacramental form. Welcoming and nurturing children is tremendously valuable work. And the Church has always celebrated the unique contributions that women make to family life. There is no teaching in the Catholic Church, however, that marriage and family is the most important work that a woman can do. And there is no teaching in the Catholic Church that marriage and family should be more important to women than they are to men. 

Consider this, from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Familiaris Consortio:

...one cannot but observe that in the specific area of family life a widespread social and cultural tradition has considered women's role to be exclusively that of wife and mother, without adequate access to public functions which have generally been reserved for men. There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women's access to public functions.

Or, consider his 1995 “Letter to Women,” in which John Paul II says this:

Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery", to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.

There is a cultural sense in which the work of mothers is undervalued. We do not solve this problem, however, by swinging to the other extreme, by suggesting to young Catholic women that marriage and children are the things that will allow them to “start living.” We need to tell Catholic women the truth. What will allow them, and all Catholics, to “start living” is to surrender themselves to the truth of God’s profound love for them; the richness of a sacramental life, lived in the community of the  Church; the joy of service to others: in short, strengthening and deepening their most fundamental vocation, which is life in Christ. More specific life decisions–marriage, work, and many other possibilities–will be satisfying insofar as they should emerge out of that firm foundation.

Butker’s address does turn to some specifics of the Catholic life, but it does so in deeply problematic ways. Continuing with the theme of marriage, Butker addresses marital intimacy and the decision a couple might make to avoid conception. Here is Butker’s take: “There is nothing good about playing God with having children — whether that be your ideal number or the perfect time to conceive. No matter how you spin it, there is nothing natural about Catholic birth control.” Again, Butker is less than perfectly clear. It is hard too find any possibility other than this: Butker means to rule out Natural Family Planning, a practice in which couples avoid conception by refraining from sex during fertile periods. 

Here again, he is in sharp disagreement with the Church. Humane Vitae, a profoundly influential papal encyclical from Pope Paul IV (1968) says this: 

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile…

This could hardly be clearer. The Church’s directive to couples is to consider the question with seriousness and to avoid pregnancy if they have “well-grounded” reasons to do so. Catholic teaching certainly allows Butker to forgo any attempt to avoid pregnancy in his own marriage. What it does not allow is for him to impose that position on others, and certainly not to include it in a public presentation of what qualifies one as “authentically and unapologetically Catholic.”

Finally, in another form of specific, concrete advice, Butker offers his thoughts on “the Latin Mass.” Most Catholics will know that TLM is an older form of the eucharistic rite which is still celebrated in some communities, although the newer form of the Mass is now the “ordinary,” or “standard,” form. Butker describes his own “embrace” of this older liturgy, but, unfortunately, he offers his own preferences as an objective standard—in direct opposition to the Church’s own accoun. His reasons for this “embrace” include these:

• “I attend the TLM because I believe, just as the God of the Old Testament was pretty particular in how he wanted to be worshiped, the same holds true for us today.” 

• “I still go to the TLM because I believe the holy sacrifice of the Mass is more important than anything else.”

In Butker’s mind, then, the Traditional Latin Mass is the form reflecting God’s intentions for worship, and the Traditional Latin Mass is the form for those who believe the holy sacrifice of the Mass is more important than anything else. Given all this, it is hardly surprising that Butker says this: “The TLM is so essential that I would challenge each of you to pick a place to move where it is readily available.”

Again, none of this is the teaching of the Church. The idea that the Latin Mass is superior to the newer Mass finds no support in any Church teaching–and it is fundamentally undercut by the decision of the Church to make the newer Mass the ordinary form. Catholics are free to prefer the Latin Mass. To imagine, however, that their preference is a referendum on what is “authentically and unapologetically Catholic” is simply a grave error. It is to substitute their judgment for the judgment of the Church.

The culture wars have been in full swing in the reaction to Butker’s speech. Perhaps it is worth it to say: when any Catholic speaker at a Catholic school offers to outline “true Catholicism” in a public address to the students of that school, and then stumbles as bad as Butker does, it is goood and just just to offer public correction of that speech. 

I will conclude with just a brief word that is a bit more personal. Harrison Butker is clearly an earnest young man of faith. He is only a little older than my own children. And he has certainly been willing to take public stands that he knows will be unpopular. To his determination, he must now continue to add wisdom. I hope he will take time away from public speaking to do just that.