Pope Sixtus II is of particular interest to me because of one controversial issue that arose during his papacy and his approach to handling it–specifically, that it’s better to be understanding of one another than to prove oneself in the right and the other side in the wrong.

That strategy alone seems worth posting and thinking about.

Yet I also believe that the particular issue that the Church was struggling with is important. Oh, eventually the Church made a choice and destroyed the Sixtus II approach of being understanding–deciding that there was a Right Answer (orthodoxy) and a Wrong Answer (in this case, naming it the Donatist heresy).

Here was the presenting problem: How important is the priest’s character, beliefs, and morality when it comes to the efficacy of his priestly actions? Another way of asking the question: What is more important–the person or the position? The human being or the office being held by the human being? How much are we bound by the actions of the person in that office? How much does the character of the person who holds that office affect the validity of what that persons does, ex officio?

So, you see, it’s not merely “OK, years ago I was baptized by a priest who turned out to be a bad actor–is my baptism still ‘good’ in God’s eyes?” It is also what to do when you have someone currently in an office that has been vested with authority who is not a good actor. How much should one respect the office when one cannot and, for moral reasons or otherwise, respect the officeholder? What if the priest is a homosexual? Or a heretic? Or a Republican? Or a subversive? Or a pawn of the government? Or mean? Or boring? Or a woman? Or a sex offender? You get the idea.

This question is not confined to religion, either. For example, we have people in the United States who say of Donald Trump: “Not My President.” Others argue that the “Office of the Presidency” merits a base level of respect from everyone, even if you vehemently disagree with the actions of the person currently holding that office. Still others stand upon a slippery truism, namely, “the President is the President, at least until we have another President.”

The Church itself came down, post-Sixtus II, unflinchingly on the side of Respect for the Office. Priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes hold offices that must be respected, irrespective of the persons who hold these offices. This acknowledges that there is no perfection to be found in any human being, and it would prove organizationally unworkable if every time some imperfection were found in an office-holder, then all the work of that office would be disregarded.

However, this position also insulates officeholders to a dangerous degree. Any amount of authority that is set aside as “not to be questioned” allows for the unspeakable and unthinkable to take hold. Look at the decades-long (centuries-long) sexual predations in churches worldwide, with the knowledge of bishops (and those even higher-up the hierarchy). Look at politics in the United States in just the 21st century.

Perhaps we can usefully begin by separating out the terms “respect” and “authority” and “office” and “officeholder” and “Personal Name.” No two should automatically be linked as a “given” that should be unquestionably accepted.

Secondly, Sixtus II’s idea–that being generous with one another is to be valued more than compelling uniform agreement–should simultaneously be resurrected.