On authority

A friend and reader of this blog writes:

The problem with the need for authority, or authority figures, is this: Every time you turn around authority figures are behaving in ways that indicate they don't deserve to be authority figures. You would say this of Bush, though i wouldn't, but I would say that's arguable. I'm thinking today about judges -- the guy in the Anna Nicole Smith case, Reggie Walton presiding over the Scooter Libby case who admits he doesn't understand the case etc. Maybe the problem with a society requiring authority figures is that in an open society it's the nature of the openness to expose the hollowness behind those who fill that role. That was less true before the whole society cracked open. But think of it -- is it better or worse that the president of Harvard isn't considered a wise man who knows all? I'd say that's better. Is it better that we know judges are often foolish people? That may be trickier, as it leads to lessened respect for law. But then what about those who make the laws? Isn't it proper to look at them critically?

The reader makes an excellent point, and I'm not sure I have an easy answer for him. Take the case of the Catholic bishops post-scandal. I would say that it's a great thing that Catholics have had many of their bishops exposed as men who were more interested in protecting pedophile priests and the image of the Church than in protecting Catholic children. The bishops hid behind their mantle of authority, and did incalculable harm to individuals and families. They completely trashed their own moral authority, and it was only when that happened that we began to see some movement toward reform.

One down side of this is that at a moment in America's history when the public witness of the Church's teaching on any number of issues is badly needed, the bishops have no compelling voice. First Things' Jody Bottum has written many times about the political effect of the self-inflicted collapse of the bishops' authority. Here, from a 2003 Crisis article, is the point he often made:

The full consequences of [the scandal] have yet to be calculated, either in America or in Rome, but here’s one small measure, as viewed from Washington, D.C.: On December 1, 2001, the Catholic Church was at the absolute forefront of the fight against cloning. Three months later, by February 1, 2002, the Catholic Church had essentially disappeared from the battle. In the middle of the campaign to force Tom Daschle, then majority leader, to allow an anti-cloning bill to come to the floor of the Senate, one major metropolitan bishop told me that he didn’t dare lobby his senators on the issue—for fear they would answer, “Who the hell are you to lecture me on a moral issue?” and rupture their relationship forever.

We are suffering from a crisis of authority in American culture, and as the reader suggests, the open society has a lot to do with that. One wonders if it's possible at all to build credible authority under current cultural conditions, when there are few if any technical or moral constraints keeping one's flaws and secrets from being exposed. Were we better off when most people thought President Kennedy was a fine, upstanding specimen of respectable American manhood, instead of a reckless pill-popping horndog? Were we better off when most people thought Cardinal Spellman was a vigorous and upright prince of the Church instead of -- you see where I'm going with this. I can't say that I'd rather live in a world where authority was maintained on the basis of lies. Perhaps, then, if something good is to come out of the open society with regard to authority, it's that the kind of men and women who rise to positions of authority in coming generations will of necessity be clean, honest, and everything they're supposed to be.

No society can do without authority figures. Every society will have them. The question is, on what criteria will we invest figures with cultural authority?