The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBenedict XVI and Tom Doyle on the crisis
by John L Allen Jr on Dec. 24, 2010
By any objective standard, the sexual abuse crisis would have to rank as the top Vatican story of 2010. Though the crisis has been around for a long time, this was the year in which critical attention came to rest squarely on Rome, including the personal track record of Pope Benedict XVI.
As fate would have it, two different assessments washed across the radar screen this week, both from people whom any court would sanction as “expert witnesses.” The contrast suggests that while everyone can agree the crisis has been devastating, the questions of what caused it, and what to do about it, remain far from settled.
One of those assessments came from the pope himself, in the form of his annual year-end address to the Roman Curia. The other is from a priest today seen as perhaps the church’s most determined in-house critic on the crisis: Dominican Fr. Thomas Doyle, who has decades of experience in documenting priestly abuse, working with victims, and consulting with plaintiffs’ attorneys.
In some ways, lumping them together risks a classic apples-and-oranges comparison. For one thing, the genre is different: Benedict XVI was offering a pastoral and spiritual reflection, while Doyle’s analysis, which he originally penned as a memo just for me, is pitched at the level of policy and media coverage. Naturally, there’s also a vast difference in ecclesiastical standing between the pope and Doyle – even if Benedict would be the first, I suspect, to concede that the dogma of papal infallibility does not mean his assessment of the causes and context of the crisis is beyond question.
However dissimilar they may be, these reflections both come from people with unique standing on the issue. (I suspect a “Top Ten” list of people on the planet who have read the most case files of Catholic priests accused of abuse would include both Benedict XVI and Doyle.)
Anyone who wants to think beyond pre-conceived notions, whether hostile to the institutional church or supportive of it, would do well to listen to both men. I’ll recap their perspectives here, as a final contribution to taking stock of 2010 – and, no doubt, previewing a debate that will continue well into 2011 and beyond.
* * *
The Christmas address to the Curia is typically the moment in which popes take a look back at the year. The fact that Benedict spoke first about the crisis reflects just how long a shadow it cast over 2010.
Sound-bites from the pope’s speech have been widely reported, but to understand what Benedict was saying it’s important to bring the full context into view.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Reading the pope’s words, there can be little doubt about his personal anguish. He quotes at length from a 12th century vision of St. Hildegard of Bingen, which vividly describes how the “garment” of the church is “torn by the sins of priests.” The pope said the vision is directly applicable to current events.
“The way she saw and expressed it,” the pope said, “is the way we have experienced it this year.”
June 29, 2010, marked the close of a “Year of Priests” called for by Benedict XVI, and he situated his reflections on the crisis in the context of appreciation for the “great gift” of the priesthood.
“We realized afresh how beautiful it is that human beings are fully authorized to pronounce in God’s name the word of forgiveness, and are thus able to change the world, to change life,” the pope said.
“We realized how beautiful it is that human beings may utter the words of consecration, through which the Lord draws a part of the world into himself, and so transforms it at one point in its very substance; we realized how beautiful it is to be able, with the Lord’s strength, to be close to people in their joys and sufferings, in the important moments of their lives and in their dark times; how beautiful it is to have as one’s life task not this or that, but simply human life itself – helping people to open themselves to God and to live from God.”
Especially in that context, the pope said, we were “all the more dismayed” by revelations about priests who “twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime.”
Facing that ugly reality, Benedict called for an examination of conscience about what went wrong, and offered a resolution to make things right.
“We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen,” he said.
Benedict vowed “to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again,” and also expressed his thanks both to those who work to help victims, and to “the many good priests” who exhibit humility and fidelity.
At the level of diagnosis, Benedict returned to a familiar theme, asserting that mistaken theories in Catholic moral theology in the 1970s helped make the sexual abuse crisis possible. By downplaying absolute good and evil and treating morality as a matter of weighing consequences, the pope said, those theories opened the door to justifying gravely immoral behaviour, including the sexual exploitation of minors.
As a result, Benedict called for renewed emphasis in moral formation on Pope John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which explicitly rejected theories such as “consequentialism” and “proportionalism,” asserting that some acts are always “intrinsically evil” and can never be justified.
I filed a story this week about the doubts some experts harbour as to whether proportionalism forms part of the backdrop to the crisis, which can be found here: Condoms not a 'lesser evil,' Vatican insists
The full text of Benedict’s address to the curia can be found here: Address to the Curia The speech could profitably be read in tandem with the extended comments from Benedict XVI in his recent book-length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, Light of the World, which devotes two full chapters and portions of several others to the sexual abuse crisis.
* * *
Doyle’s take came in response to my Nov. 19 “All Things Catholic” column, in which I wrote about a session for reporters led by George Weigel and myself in Miami, under the aegis of the “Faith Angel Forum” of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, on media coverage of the sexual abuse crisis. (The full transcript of that session should be available on the Ethics and Public Policy Center Web site shortly after the New Year’s holiday.)
Albeit in different ways, both Weigel and I suggested that coverage of the response to the crisis by the Vatican and Benedict XVI in 2010 was a mixed bag, sometimes missing important bits of context which would offer a more balanced perspective. Both of us also said the media isn’t entirely to blame – the Vatican’s underdeveloped communications capacity is part of the picture.
In response, Doyle sent along a 21-point memo. He intended it as feedback for me, but he was gracious enough to give me permission to use it in this column.
The memo is too long to reproduce in its entirety, but what appears below is a line or two from most of Doyle’s points. In some spots it’s strong medicine, but it articulates convictions that are deeply held in some sectors of opinion, and which must be part of a serious conversation about where things stand.
1. “The overall impression of the article is an apology for the Vatican’s response and for its communications with secular media. … The real subject is the widespread sexual violation of minors and the systematic, inadequate response of the institutional church.”
2. “Defenders of the papacy, as well as most if not all [members of] the curia and hierarchy, lack an essential credential for credibility: an understanding of the victims and their families, especially parents.”
3. “By my estimation [Benedict XVI] has met with approximately 20 victims in the U.S., Great Britain, Malta and Australia, with an average of one minute or less with each victim. These encounters were carefully planned and the victims carefully chosen. This hardly qualifies for gaining any level of understanding.”
4. “None of the criticism of media stories about cases involving the Vatican provided any evidence that the facts upon which the stories were based, were erroneous … These were but a small sampling of many other priests guilty of sexually abusing minors whose cases were delayed or buried in the Vatican.”
5. “I seriously question George Weigel’s credibility as an expert on clergy sex abuse. Weigel’s current remarks about the crisis of 2002 are at variance with the numerous statements he made at the time, statements that defended Cardinal [Bernard] Law and tried to shift the focus from what it was, sexual violation of children and cover-up, to cultural and theological issues.”
6. “Weigel’s claim that Pope John Paul II received deficient information through Vatican channels doesn’t hold water. … I prepared an extensive report in 1985 that was personally given [to John Paul II] by Cardinal [John] Krol. I also recall giving a detailed briefing to [a top Vatican official] in May 1985. … I am quite certain that since that time much more information has found its way to the Vatican.”
7. “Defenders of the Vatican, including you, regularly fall back on the standard defenses: the Vatican does business in a way Americans don’t understand; the Vatican wants to let the U.S. solve its own problems; the Vatican uses a unique form of communication which Americans don’t ‘get.’ … If it wants to be understood, the Vatican should abandon its convoluted language and have someone help them learn how to speak directly and to the point.”
8. “Appealing to the fact that the incidence of abuse among Catholics is no higher than other groups makes as much sense as one of the Wall Street financial giants trying to save face by claiming, ‘Why pick on us when we cheated no more than the other banks down the block?’”
9. “It’s misleading to say, ‘The Catholic Church is arguably the safest environment for young people and adolescents in the country.’ First off, there are no data to support this. More importantly, all of the procedures and programs have been put in place after the Boston revelations of 2002. [They] were put in place because the bishops were forced to do so.”
10. “The question of reliable sources is most important. This crisis began in 1984 and continued to simmer, with occasional events of major magnitude such as the James Porter case of 1993 and the Kos trial in 1997. … Very few people are still on the playing field who were involved at the beginning and have continued involvement. … I have never been contacted by defenders of the institutional church, no doubt because I am written off as totally biased. This tag is unjustified because I have struggled from the early days to understand and accept the institution’s response. “
11. On plaintiff’s lawyer Jeffrey Anderson: “The accusation that Jeff is in it only for the money is based on subjective opinion and certainly not facts. The number of victims Jeff has helped ‘pro bono’ is unknown because there have been so many. Jeff has given away huge sums of money to organizations that help children and to individuals in need. He is sometimes flamboyant and passionate, but he is committed to bringing justice to victims and a safe environment for children in the future.”
12. “Over the past 22 years I have worked with over two hundred attorneys in the U.S., Canada, Ireland, the U.K. and Australia, all of whom represented victims in civil suits. I vividly recall one attorney telling me that he had served in just about every capacity in the legal system, from public defender to State Supreme court judge, and had been both a defense attorney and a prosecutor. He remarked that he had never encountered an organization as duplicitous and manipulative as the Catholic Church.”
13. “Benedict is not a great reformer. I believe he is personally shocked and possibly even devastated by what he has seen, [but] his responses have been very limited. They have concentrated on the canonical prosecution of accused priests, but they have remained mute about the core issue, namely the lack of accountability of complicit bishops and the lack of penal measures against bishops who have themselves sexually abused minors.”
14. “The response to the crisis by the late John Paul II is indeed a serious stain on his legacy. … John Paul’s personal theology of priesthood is that of a highly mystical state consisting of an ontological change at the time of ordination, which he often referred to as a joining with Christ. What this amounts to is the belief that it is acceptable to sacrifice the spiritual and emotional welfare of innocent children for a theory that would return priests to their theological pedestal.”
15. “I have had firsthand experience with hundreds of victims, if not thousands, and second-hand experience with countless others. I have not once learned that a bishop’s first response on receiving a report of alleged sexual abuse was directed at the welfare of the victim.”
16. “The secular media are not anti-Catholic, nor are they biased against the hierarchy. They do not set out to make the institutional Church look bad. The institutional Church needs no help at that…it has done a thorough job on its own.”
[Editor's Note: Readers may be interested in Fr. Tom Dolye's analysis of Benedict's curia address: What victims hear in pope's talk on sex abuse.]
* * *
My bringing these perspectives together is, of course, a media exercise. As a holiday wish, here’s hoping that 2011 will bring an honest-to-God conversation among thoughtful voices on all sides of the issues raised here, one not conducted primarily through the press or the blogosphere, and in the context of shared concern both for victims and for the church.
That would mark an important step indeed towards the examination of “what went wrong … in our whole way of living the Christian life” which the pope has invited.
Thank you, John. I look
Thank you, John. I look forward to the day when you become editor of NCR and shouting self-righteously gives way to mutual dialogue in humility. For that to happen, we have to give up on the notion that a small-town paper in Kansas City can provide adequate perspective on the church and the world, as well as the notion that the church of Christ is coterminous with the hierarchy. - Margaret.
Where do you think Hildegarde
Where do you think Hildegarde of Bingen parked her butt! Not in a bustling metropolis...but his 'holiness' is quoting her. Kansas city is just fine as a locus for information exchange in the 21st century.
“We must ask ourselves what
“We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen,” the pope said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Margaret,
Would you please ask the pope to order all the bishops world wide to release all the names of priests who sexually abused children and others ?.
Also, start defrocking the enabling bishops world wide.
Remove Cardinal Law from his cushy job, and direct him for his remaining years to a monastery for reflection and prayer.
Forget it Margaret--those are jokes I made up --------------
John, Doyle is 1000 percent
John,
Doyle is 1000 percent right. The reason for all the shouting these past few decades is because of the pressures to silence, bully, intimidate and lie to those who have seen the truth for many many years. The problem with the way the Christian life has been applied to the RC Church is due to power and unchecked power at that. The Hierarchy's interest in their own interests undo all of the efforts others make at trying to make a Christian impact in the World. I believe over intellectualized rationalizations and excuses help no one in this situation. An honest, look at the Euro Court like secrecy's , maneuverings, opposite motivations in the use of Ecclesial Guidance and power ARE the problem. Just the fact that you have to have an INDEPENDENT Catholic newspaper over the Diocesan newspapers taking the truth telling lead in this story, says it all.
Your article is fair and
Your article is fair and balanced and of course you are notoriously fair and balanced in your reporting. That's a blessing! I think the major difference between Pope Benedict and your fair reporting on him and Vatican efforts is that neither you or George Wiegel are shrill and angry in your reporting efforts. Fr. Doyle on the other hand, while certainly justified in his anger and I'm certain he knows the pain of victims more so than most people in the Church today, finds his energy in anger and castigation, not only of the Holy Father(s), the Vatican personnel and others, but of you and Wiegel. Somehow the Christian message that we celebrate every Christmas is about God coming to the stink of humanity in the symbol of the manger and redeeming the whole lot of us. Only the recognition of the stink which many liberal theologians have denigrated since Vatican II and the reality that Jesus came to save even pedophiles and an enabling institution is a scandal to the world and those mired in the muck of rage and anger that propels toward revenge rather than forgiveness, reconciliation and peace on earth. It is a vicious cycle that needs to be broken and I feel the Holy Father is setting the institution on the right path; Fr. Doyle on a detour of wallowing in the disgrace that institutional leadership has brought upon the Church collective.
You pompous little...You
You pompous little...You survey the amount of human wreckage that Doyle has seen right on the front lines of this 'catholic' mess. He's articulate and has deep feelings obviously as a result of looking into the 'pit'. Fr. Doyle didn't lose his mind, nor his human integrity.
"Southern orders'" a prig! If
"Southern orders'" a prig!
If 'southern orders' ever had the privilege of actually meeting Tom Doyle, he wouldn't be able to dismiss Tom as a man "wallowing in his anger."
And besides, what other emotion other than anger would be more appropriate in this circumstance?
Tom Doyle is the only priest-hero for literally thousands of survivors and their supporters that has yet to emerge from this hellacious scandal. True to his priestly ordination, Tom Doyle has stood courageously, despite tremendous personal costs, with the survivors against the monolith of church obfuscation, complicity, corruption, and in too many cases, criminality. St. Dominic is proud to have Tom Doyle in his company.
Attempts to malign Tom Doyle, to demean his service to the suffering survivors among us, to belittle his motives, to discredit his contributions to understanding the calamity that has befallen the church, must be seen for what it truly is: The guilt-ridden carping of those with puny heart, mind and spirit.
I appreciate the fair and
I appreciate the fair and balanced nature of Mr. Allen's reports as well. However, your condemnation of anger in the face of this ongoing evil makes me ....angry. Jesus shows his anger at our failings and disbelief many times, as I'm sure you know. He includes Peter, the Pharisees, and all of Jerusalem into the heights and depths of His emotions. So what response should we have, in love, to abusers of children? To those using simple faith for their own causes, destroying faith for at least some in the process? For those who allowed these evil men and women to continue their evil for the sake of continuing hierarchy? To a church that lets money govern its response to Maciel even after his death? To a lack of compassion and even hatred toward women and gay people longing to serve, to love as best they can, enshrining our prejudices in God's supposed will? Shall I continue, because I've only described it from my viewpoint. What about the anger from those who long for an end to abortion? Those who ceaselessly pray despite their misgivings? Not my priorities, but I must hear them.
I grieve the faithlessness of my church and its hierarchy. I want conservative, liberal, simple, deep theological, and all the rest of us the faithful to be brought to love and life through our Lord. I would ask you to pray with the shrill and angry Jesus, the disobedient Jesus, the one who wallowed with us. Let's remove the beam in our eye first before noting how fair and balanced my own argument is.
If God always agrees with me, then who is God?
Southern orders, I agree with
Southern orders,
I agree with you that this is a fair and balanced article. John Allen offers to perspectives and invites the reader to draw her/his own conclusion. In the spirit of dialogue, I would like to suggest that it is not appropriate to compare the tone of Allen/Weigel with Doyle. Allen/Weigel are journalists, their job/vocation is to present information/perspectives to us, in general this should be done in as unbiased way as possible. Doyle is an advocate for the victims. His job/vocation is to be their voice, and express their pain. In a similar way the prophets and Jesus advocated for the vulnerable and marginalized. They struggled against any institution that was not faithful to the covenant. Their struggle was emotional and at times even angry (Jesus in the temple). Like you I agree that Doyle's struggle should be for reconciliation, not revenge, but reconciliation requires a change. Perhaps you disagree with Doyle's assessment of what is happening and why it happened, but if his assessment is correct and the abuse is rooted in an institutional reality then love demands that he struggle until that institution changes. I agree that Jesus came to redeem all including sinners like us and an enabling institution, but redemption should be connected to a constant struggle for conversion in us as individuals and in our Church which at times can be experienced as "an enabling institution". Until it addresses the root of its enabling we need prophets who challenge and struggle within it, or we will never have any peace or justice and fail to be the body of Christ that can bring healing to our world. Finally, I suspect you would classify me as a liberal, I hope you pray for liberals like me, I think we simply struggle to understand our life, world and church and how the Gospel can bring healing to them and calls them to conversion.
Peace and Merry Christmas Southern Orders
This is a reply to southern
This is a reply to southern orders' comment. There is nothing unfair or unbalanced in Fr. Doyle's analysis of the sexual abuse scandal. On the one hand, you state that Fr. Doyle's anger is justified because he knows the pain suffered by abusers better than anyone else in the church. On the other hand, you attack him for being angry. Which is it? Fr. Doyle, from everything I have read about him, doesn't wallow in the disgrace that institutional leadership has brought upon the church collective. He is, however, unrelenting in his pursuit of justice for the abuse survivors and accountability from the bishops.
Mighty powerful Kool-Aid
Mighty powerful Kool-Aid you're drinking, southern orders.
Fr Doyle seems to be angry
Fr Doyle seems to be angry all the time. Maybe that is the role he is playing but how can one communicate with someone who chooses to be angry all the time?
Is he playing bad cop in some good cop-bad cop dialectic?
Most of us have never been close to and have not had to deal with issues of sex abuse by Catholic priests. I have not had to do this. Would Fr. Doyle be angry with me?
I am not sure it is imperative to just do "what victims want". Some of them seem like pin-balls flying all over the place. Some of them are just going to be lost, just like some of every other other specie (popes, bishops, priests, deacons, nuns, straights, homosexuals, apostates, men, women, children, police, janitors, etc) or group are going to be lost. Tragic yes, but real.
Michael, There are times when
Michael, There are times when righteous anger is needed to clear the cobwebs creating befuddled thinking, and to denounce the search by our bishops for scapegoats. Fr. Doyle is doing that now.
The more he is trashed, as are other critics, the more the Catholic Church invites comparison to our growing penchant for cheap public spectacles. The new replacement for the "Gong Show", "Jerry Springer", and "Let's Make a Deal". Bishop after bishop pops up daily with a blatant appeal to our lowest common denominator Catholic: philistines and neanderthals dominating the traditional wing of the Church and others who seem to have derived their religious convictions and sensibilities compliments of a steady diet of Faux News.
Michael, Another
Michael, Another perspective.... To say that Tom Doyle is "angry all the time" is to miss the point. He is one of the most articulate, honest, direct, courageous voices on this topic. He has seen close up the pain caused to the victims, pain caused by the original abuse, and the on-going pain caused by the "church's" reaction to having been caught protecting the abusers. He has been treated with utter disresepct by the hierarchy, as a reaction to his truth-telling. They should be treating him as an honored hero, a gift to the organization, as he represents what they only claim to represent.
These behaviors and crimes should make anyone with a soul and a brain very angry. In my view, Tom Doyle is very easy to communicate with, just be prepared for an honest discussion.
You say you have never had to deal with the issue of clergy abuse. One does not have to be a direct abuse victim to be impacted by this crisis in the church. Every Catholic has been betrayed. Every human has been betrayed by the hypocrisy and crimes of the leadership, and many clergy members, of this "religious" organizations. Seeing it as someone else's issue is not helpful.
Those "pin ball" victims to which you refer know far better than you what true healing, justice, dialogue and progress would look like. Yes, some victims are "lost." In most cases, abuse by a priest is the cause of their being lost. Lost or not,they deserve to be heard. Their pain and anger is informative to those who are open to learning.
Tom Doyle represents victims well. I'm sorry if his "anger" makes you uncomfortable. Rape and abuse of children is anger-provoking.
In other sex abuse news,
In other sex abuse news, alleged serial sex abuser Jesuit Fr. Jerold Lindner, with $2 million paid in sex abuse settlements and TESOL qualifications (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages), may have had five decades of Boy Scout affiliation from the 1950s and into the 1990s. Lindner joined the Boy Scouts in the 1950s and had a troop of 75 Boy Scouts in 1962 when he was only 18. Lindner advanced to be the Boy Scout Chaplain for the Catholic Committee on Scouting, Los Angles Area Council in 1994.
I hope 1994 was the final year in which Fr. Lindner was involved with Boy Scouts.
Lindner is a product of Jesuit Brophy College Prepatory (Phoenix) – taught there by Fr. Alfred Naucke, the #2 Jesuit in California. Lindner taught teens at Jesuit Loyola High, Los Angeles for 15-years starting in the 1980s. Lindner then reportedly received a master's degree in linguistics at San Jose State University in 2000 and tutored young seminarians in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas.
Lindner is in the news recently because he had a confrontation with a person he is alleged to have abused 35-years ago and the other person was arrested.
Man pleads not guilty to beating Los Gatos priest he says molested him 12/07/2010
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16799841
The problem with individuals
The problem with individuals like Fr. Doyle and some in the leadership of SNAP, who decry not being invited into dialog with the Church hierarchy, is that their rhetoric never suggests the likelihood that they could engage in an "honest-to-God," "thoughtful" conversation on this issue. I once read a letter from SNAP to a bishop that began something like, "I know you will just ignore this ..."
WBenwell, I don't know of the
WBenwell, I don't know of the particular letter to which you refer. But I do know that after repeatedly being ignored, one understandably becomes frustrated and sceptical. Members of the church hierarchy respond to victims on their terms, on their timetable, with their agenda. They typically ignore victims' requests, and suggestions for action to be taken. They often treat victims as the enemy. The church hierarchy has never shown that they want to honestly hear what victims have to say. It makes sense that the letter was begun in the way you mentioned when you know the history. The writer most likely had made many attempts at "thoughtful" conversation only to be ignored or rebuked.
Tom Doyle has been actively trying to engage with, and inform, the hierarchy for decades. If they had listened to him long ago, they might not be in this mess. In my opinion, you are putting the blame (for the lack of meaningful discussion) on the wrong party. I suggest that you try walking in the shoes of Tom Doyle, SNAP leaders, and SNAP members before criticizing their frustration and lack of trust.
I am old. Been around a long
I am old. Been around a long time and all that time as a Catholic. I read both Bendicts's comments and Tom Doyles. And when I'm done, I find myself humming Pete Seeger's lyrics, "When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?"
"what went wrong … in our
"what went wrong … in our whole way of living the Christian life”.
Cardinal Claudio Hummes gives us a hint at the answer when he writes: "A servant church must have as its priority solidarity with the poor,"--"Today more than ever, the church faces this challenge. In fact, effective solidarity with the poor, both individual persons and entire nations, is indispensable for the construction of peace. Solidarity corrects injustices, reestablishes the fundamental rights of persons and of nations, overcomes poverty and even resists the revolt that injustice provokes, eliminating the violence that is born with revolt and constructing peace."
Let me suggest a way which would help to reestablish this "solidarity with the poor" here in the USA.
A "preferential option for the poor" should be maintained in our Catholic
Schools. If we find that we cannot afford to keep our schools open to the
poor, the schools should be closed and the resources used for something else
which can be kept open to the poor. We cannot allow our Church to become a
church primarily for the middle-class and rich while throwing a bone to the
poor. The priority should be given to the poor even if we have to let the
middle-class and rich fend for themselves.
Practically speaking, the Catholic Schools must close and the resources
used for "Confraternity of Christian Doctrine" and other programs which can
be kept open to the poor. Remember, the Church managed without Catholic
Schools for centuries. We can get along without them today. The essential
factor is to cultivate enough Faith to act in the Gospel Tradition, namely,
THE POOR GET PRIORITY. The rich and middle-class are welcome too. But the
poor come first.
Really your solution to all
Really your solution to all of this is to close Catholic Schools? That's the best idea you could come up with?
Fr. Tom Doyle does a fine job
Fr. Tom Doyle does a fine job of pointing out some of the silliness of the convoluted apologias in which many Church insiders (such as Weigel) indulge.
It is just unfortunate that we have to see the old arguments trotted out time and time again, i.e.,
only to be refuted time and time again.
A previous commentator suggests that Tom is not sufficiently infused with the Holy Spirit (this is a variation on the pious response that usually ends up exhorting the victims to "forgive" while the Church is still re-victimizing them). I would suggest that Tom is the agent of the Holy Spirit, come to set things to rights. The palpable anger is part of the hazards of that particular vocation.
As a former Christian Brother acuaintance of mine posted on the door of his room "Jesus is coming and boy is he pissed."
It has been sad to read that
It has been sad to read that another world-wide organisation that does a great deal of good - the scouting movement - has also been tarred by the misbehavior of some of its millions of members who were not filtered out before they could do harm. Many laicised priests, including James Porter, worked for many years as high school teachers and continued to do damage in their new positions. Neither bishops nor school superintendents nor scout administrators want this to happen, but it does. Is there a way now, with advanced technology that was not previously available, to have the equivalent of a 'do not fly list' whereby those about whom there is reasonable suspicion would not be publicly shamed but would be prevented from finding employment or working as volunteers in situations where they could harm vulnerable people.
Excellent article, John. The
Excellent article, John. The contrasting presentation of different views and perspectives on the priests’ abuse situation was a journalistic good choice to indicate where we are.
I have personally criticized your strong defense of the Vatican and the Pope in most of your writings, which many of us readers see as patronizing. Many of us are well educated and can distinguish the superfluous from the essential of what the media have published. And there are quite a few examples of both. Fr. Doyle reflects exactly what many of us have concluded by analyzing, reading, knowing and living locally the experience of some of the cases, and the institutional and hierarchical “actions” responding to them. Certainly, Fr. Doyle's expertise worldwide has probably no equivalent in any single person. But our institutional Church continues to find theories and reasons to attribute priests' and Bishops' sins to cultural secular conditions. The changes in cultural mores are the result of societal evolution resulting from the advances in many fields of knowledge. The slowness of the institutional Church to assess how to deal with them is, in my opinion, part of the crisis we are in.
The Pope and the Curia need to face squarely the need to accept their blame (which the Pope has partially acknowledged) and begin to really apply human justice to the criminals, including the Bishops, helping the victims long term, and stop the promotion of Bishops involved in the abuse to Vatican positions, or accepting their retirement without just consequences. We, the people of God, will not be able to feel respect and accept the credibility to whatever comes from Rome or the hierarchy anywhere, even their teaching. It is sad, because there are many good Priests and some Bishops around the world who deserve better reputation and gratitude for their service of love. We should pray for them.
I hope the Holy Spirit will bless us all, sinners, and purify and sanctify his Church in the New Year.
I have to agree with Fr.
I have to agree with Fr. Doyle. The priesthood was considered more important than the victims.
As for the rationalization that the proportionalism of the 70's is being used as an explantion for deviant behavior or the toleration of it,I find very difficult to understand. I dount that any seminary was actually assuring its students that it was o.k. to enjoy "young flesh". I'm equally sure, that there are many priests and religious who protested to their superiors when they saw the liberties that had been taken. It's at the higher level at the church needs to truly address if there is to be real healing.
I haven't really heard the words of the act of contrition truly coming from anywhere.
"I dount that any seminary
"I dount that any seminary was actually assuring its students that it was o.k. to enjoy "young flesh"."
You should read the book "Goodbye Good Men" before you say that so confidently.
Father Doyle importantly
Father Doyle importantly looks to JPII and his mysticism of the priesthood as one of the causes of the crisis. This is ontology gone haywire; that a priest in ontologically different from other humans. This type of mystic elevation of the priest is also reflected in Benedict
“We realized afresh how beautiful it is that human beings are fully authorized to pronounce in God’s name the word of forgiveness, and are thus able to change the world, to change life,” the pope said.
“We realized how beautiful it is that human beings may utter the words of consecration, through which the Lord draws a part of the world into himself, and so transforms it at one point in its very substance; we realized how beautiful it is to be able, with the Lord’s strength, to be close to people in their joys and sufferings, in the important moments of their lives and in their dark times; how beautiful it is to have as one’s life task not this or that, but simply human life itself – helping people to open themselves to God and to live from God.”
Yes, and these priests forgave THEMSELVES. And they changed the church not for the better but for the worse. And the church still suffers.
And then there's the consecration doctrines of Benedict. What this amounts to is the practice of mono-masses--the point of the the consecration is the priest, not the people--they could even be absent from the Mass--but it is the priest who changes the world--not the priest in consort with the people. The real nonsense in all of this is Benedict's claim that the consecration enables the priest to be close to people in their joys and sufferings--would that this were so. But this exalting of the priesthood does the opposite. Imagine any bishop, any bishop, as the result of the Mass and consecration, first going to the victims. Father Doyle is right on the money here. The bishops to this day go first to protection, protection of the church. In order to avoid scandal they are the great scandalizers.
Thank you for printing the
Thank you for printing the private memo from Dominican Fr. Thomas Doyle He has my vote in this argument. I think the Pope is comparing apple and oranges, and misses the point very often. Doyle hits the nail on the head. I do wish that you had printed the complete letter with the points in full. However, what you have printed is very enlightening and encouraging. I have read Doyle before and consider him a credible and experienced man. Now if only Benedict would pay attention to him.
I am just an old (82) old
I am just an old (82) old Franciscan Priest, so I lived through the 60’s and 70’s. It still seems to me one of the major “causes” is the whole Catholic doctrine about sexuality. It has gotten a bit better, but not much. Once you jump from the fact that sexuality is the means of human procreation to insist that therefore ever act of sex has to be “open to procreation” you have made a jump that is not logical.
So in the 60’s Hugh Heffner’s “Playboy Philosophy” made more sense than did “Catholic Philosophy about sex.
And until we develop a good, healthy, rational Philosophy and Theology about Sexuality we will continue to have a great divide between what ordinary Catholics do and what the Church supposedly teaches ( though not many priests actually preach! or believe.)
What would "just an old 82yr
What would "just an old 82yr old Franciscan Priest" know about Hugh Heffner's "Playboy Philosophy" in the 60's?
Doing a little subtraction that would have made you around 40ish.
No spiritual nurture there Fr.
Time for you L.N. to get out
Time for you L.N. to get out of the convent a little more often. The point the good Father was making is: to reach real people you need to speak a real language! Jesus didn't isolate himself like the Pope does with his Curia; Jesus knew that to help people with their very real issues, you need to ACTUALLY BE with them so as to understand their environment. What good is a church that is so far removed from the people it is supposed to SERVE as to make statements and propose doctrine that have no realistic meaning-------but only serve to support some academic scholastic theory of morality! Such a church accomplishes nothing and exposes the truth and compassion of Jesus to ridicule. This was never the way of Jesus whom they purport to serve! However, it does fit perfectly with the model of the Scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus constantly denounced. Time for change!
An 82ish Franciscan friar,
An 82ish Franciscan friar, should have better examples to compare with.
You don't have to be an apple to know what one looks like and as far as this Hepner fellow goes, I'm surprised he'd know who he is let alone comment on him.
Sound a little "girly" to me and far from any spiritual benefit.
You are not "an old [82]
You are not "an old [82] Franciscan Priest", Father. Your advanced insight and wisdom belie your years in the Catholic church; while it got old, you stayed youthful and progressive! Oh, that God might grant us more "old Franciscan priests". So many of the current occupants of the Vatican are suffering from severe hardening of the cranial arteries that it is seriously affecting their ability to reason. Due to this ailment of theirs, most thinking individuals are fleeing by the busload! Thank you for your insights which, in my book, are spot on!
Father Anonymous, I am a
Father Anonymous, I am a retired 75 year old priest. Let me comment that you have put the finger of the central issue in this whole mess. Until the church develops a wholesome and realistic teaching on human sexuality, there will be problems and not only in the priesthood.
Father JS, is that you?
Father JS, is that you?
Thanks for printing Doyle's
Thanks for printing Doyle's comments. This gives better balance to the Allen-Wiegel comments. Wiegel, in particular, has no credibility on this issue of clerical abuse. He's done nothing to report, halt or correct it.
The only way to stop the
The only way to stop the abuse is to stop paying into the collection basket. Where the "hush money" comes to pay off the predators and the local DA and police.
Your analysis with Doyle's
Your analysis with Doyle's observations raise the question is the church reformable? I doubt it
To Loyola alum.. Thank you
To Loyola alum..
Thank you for the great service you are doing in reporting jesuit abusers.
Lindner is one out of many Jesuits who were known abusers yet were allowed by the jesuits and church to work with children and adults only until they were forced not too.
The recent sentencing of Jesuit fairfield university graduate Douglas Perlitz who claims he was abused by a jesuit preist leader who mentored him as a student and who headed his charity in Haiti.(perlitz was sentenced for almost 20 years for raping young boys in Haiti)
This is a story that has managed to escape much of the media but really needs to be told as it suggests patterns in jesuit grooming processes and initiations that perpetuates rape of children and adults.
Hopefully catholics will take it upon themselves to become informed of the systemic abuse by jesuits (some very prominent including but not limited to mother theresa's spiritual advisor)throughout our country and the world.
I'll go with Fr. Doyle's
I'll go with Fr. Doyle's assessment and opinion. I do not find him to be shrill... perhaps frustrated since his knowledge of the abuses goes back 25+ years. Will anyone refute Doyle's statement that Cardinal Krol gave JP II the info on the abuses, and JP II did what??? he told Ratzinger to go thru church channels and rules not civil authorities.
even if Benedict would be the first, I suspect, to concede that the dogma of papal infallibility does not mean his assessment of the causes and context of the crisis is beyond question.
The above paragraph by Allen that B16 or anyone could conceivably think B16's judgment could have more validity than the facts presented is strange.
Allen continues to try to
Allen continues to try to justify the actions of this pope.
If this pope were genuinely anquished about the affair he would do more than quote Hildegard of Bengin.
He would DO something about it.
The first step might be not only to accept all the resignations of those bishops who had anything to do with the sad state of affairs, but to demand resignations from the guilty bishops who have not tendered their resignations. And not give them palaces in Rome to retire to.
So Allen, don't tell me that this pope has a genuine anquish about this.
Because his actions prove that he doesn't..... except to people like you who have defending him for years.... for reasons unknown to anyone. You know that he probably isn't going to give you a red hat, don't you?
Let's just be very honest and
Let's just be very honest and forthcoming here. With the depth, magnitude, and horrendous proportions of the rape of innocent children by the Bishops, Priests, Archibishops of this Church, not for 25 years, but since the earliest recorded history of the Church. The Counsil of Elvira addressed it, Father Damian, and many Canon references throught history of the Church.
Please tell me how concerned this Pope actually is, when he meets with 20, timed and orchestrated victims on 3 continents, for about 1 minute each?
I mean really! Over and over, country after country, the hiding of the Priests, the protection and united secrecy criminal lying by the Bishops, the Vatican, and something not addressed....the brother Priests that protect each other.
I hear Father Doyle's absolute frustration with his Church, it's pompous leaders.
It is a conspiracy, when we see the exact same pattern, over and over, consistant, unending all over the world.
The Pope is complicit, his Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Priests express their disdain for the children, the laity, and the world.
Anonymous, I believe you are
Anonymous, I believe you are correct when you write:
"The Pope is complicit, his Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Priests express their disdain for the children, the laity, and the world."
What is even more offensive is that this so-called Christian church orchestrates this disdain in the name of Jesus! What sort of organization shows so much negative and evil-minded abuse towards men, women, and children! And to have the audacity and boldness to justify it in Jesus' name! How can such an organization perpetuate these crimes and still remain in existence; have all of us become so lax and complacent in the face of evil as to remain passive? Have we been brainwashed by this institution so as to lose our sense of justice and virtue and ability to think for ourselves that we allow these leaders to perform evil without any consequence? This is outrageous; it cannot be tolerated.
Catholic people: WAKE UP and throw the bums out-------DO it in the name of Jesus and be real Christians!
I do not think that the pope
I do not think that the pope and Tom Doyle’s analysis of the sexual abuse scandal is a question of the classic apples-and-oranges. The pope’s pastoral and spiritual reflection is based on denial of what took place and his inability to face the truth. Doyle’s focus on reality comes from years of compassionate listening to survivors and his reading of documents which clearly show the bishops knew exactly what they were doing. There is nothing less pastoral or spiritual about Doyle’s analysis. As a matter of fact, his is the more spiritual because his focus is justice, compassion, and healing for the survivors, clearly the message which Christ proclaims and clearly the way the church did not respond to those abused by predator priests.
Concerning the abuse scandal, Benedict makes three points in his address to curial officials. First, he states that “only the truth saves,” and then goes on to question what went wrong to allow this abuse. Benedict knows very well what went wrong. Besides documented evidence and his brief meeting with survivors, he knows that sick priests who abused children were protected by sicker bishops and their advisors whose only goal was to protect the “good name” of the predators and the church. He knows that the bishops hid the truth, covered up for these abusers, and, therefore, allowed them to further abuse more children. This is what went wrong.
Second, he states that “in the 1970’s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.” Does he really believe that or is he listening to the same curial advisors who maintained that the sexual abuse scandal was an American problem caused by the media out to get the church? Admittedly, in the 1970’s there was little knowledge of pedophilia, including whether it could be cured. But who would make such an outlandish statement that pedophilia was acceptable except sick persons who were exploiting children?
Third, the pope makes proportionalism, a theory articulated by some moral theologians in the 1970’s, as his latest scapegoat. His analysis is a disingenuous way to once again deflect the truth, that sick priests and sicker bishops were the cause of the sexual abuse scandal. Proportionalism was never used to justify the violation of innocent children, and theologians advocating this theory did not deny, as the pope and his predecessor claimed, that there were no intrinsically evil acts. The pope shifts the blame to a theory in moral theology just as the bishops have always shifted the blame to doctors and psychologists who gave them bad advice.
The church teaches that there are some acts which are intrinsically evil and those participating in those acts are formal cooperators in that evil, and are, therefore, automatically excommunicated. What could be more intrinsically evil than the violation of innocent children? When will the church clearly teach that the sexual abuse of a child is an intrinsically evil act? When will it teach that the people who participated in those acts either by committing them (priest abusers) or aiding them (bishops and their advisors) are formal cooperators in an intrinsically evil act, and are, therefore, automatically excommunicated?
The pope and bishops rightly protect the defenseless child in its mother’s womb. Apparently, that protection ceases once the child is born. The pope is right that “only the truth saves.” The question remains, “When will he finally acknowledge it?”
Benedict should give us a
Benedict should give us a break and stop blaming the morals of the sixties for clergy unspeakable sins. So what happened with St. Hildegard of Bingen? Were the clergy sins do to a breakdown in society also. How irresponsible of the pope. The truth is that the priesthood has been structured for so many centuries along royalty lines with the humility of Christ not even on its top ten list. And there goes Benedict with the "words of Consecration" again as if to say that the church would not exist without priests. There goes the royalty claim again sans humility. And above all Benedict does not mention the bishop's cover-up which all agree is worse than the abuse. The bishop's response to all this has been to angrily denounce 24/7 abortion and the gays.
At any rate I must give kudos to Allen for reporting the points of Doyle who has literally suffered immeasurably at the hands of the shepherds who should have been his supporters. Does he ever tell it like it is!
Dear Bill, Just one
Dear Bill, Just one clarifying point, we are talking about crimes. I think that to use the word "sins" instead minimizes the horrific reality. Thank you.
Another clarifying point: the
Another clarifying point: the acts are both crimes and sins. The theological habit was to ignore the former and 'wash clean' the latter in confession. But pedophilia is apparently is a habit that doesn't easily 'wash'. And ignoring or covering up the criminal behavior while teaching morality, abstinence, rhythm method, etc., smacks not a little bit of phariseeism. Good Pope John, who is apparently despised by the Curial bureaucrats, tried to open the windows and let in the air and light. Rome has managed to reseal the apertures to the Whited Sepulcre.
Tradition and ancient
Tradition and ancient valuable practice based on truths that we need to maintain as human beings CANNOT be maintained if they do not face and deal with the realities of the new, of the times, of the coming to be. I think in that respect Fr. Doyle's comments do raise the questions that MUST be addressed hopefully in the year ahead. The old way of doing things has failed in the Vatican. The "institution" has been exposed. It has violated those fundamental truths it claims to hold. It does matter what the world sees and understands. The institution is not above the world in which it exists.
From my perspective as a
From my perspective as a teacher with 35+ years of experience with teenagers, I think a great part of the difference in understanding is a matter of reality. I feel sorry that Benedict is so out of touch with the real world due to his estrangement with it by way of his curia. Fr. Doyle works with the families of victims, and the victims themselves on a daily basis. Obviously, their understanding of the problem will be quite different. Weigel and Allen, almost by way of occupation, are spokespeople for Benedict.
Now where is the reality? It certainly is NOT with a pope who is cut off from the real world and surrounded by academics who only operate in a conceptual world of philosophy and theology. He might have something to add in a university colloquium on some obtuse topic, but clearly illiterate on real world issues such as sex abuse of minors. So, to look to him or his cronies for answers would be ridiculous. That is the exact response he generates to real people.
So, the deeper and more serious problem with this issue and all those others facing modern people in search of a meaningful relationship with God, is to bring the Catholic church into the modern world. It seems we tried that once before only to have it sabotaged by the Romans in the Vatican. I suggest we need to look outside of the current arrangement of things and use some creative insights into finding Jesus away from the hierarchical structure that we are currently stifled by. If we keep the old system [wineskins], we will keep butting heads with this structure again and again. Time to put the new wine [Jesus' new way] into new wineskins and throw out the old. It has become toxic.
Let us all pray for a healing
Let us all pray for a healing following the crisis.
I do note that Fr. Doyle
I do note that Fr. Doyle carefully avoided any of the implications of the homosexual nature of so many cases of abuse. Likewise the real problems of the homosexual subculture in so many seminaries. If he is to be "fearless" in his quest for truth then all avenues of inquiry should be open. He does not want bishops to be sacred cows. Fair enough. But let's also pursue the relationship between homosexuality and abuse. I have read a fair number of cases myself and that almost always stands out.
What is your point? You
What is your point? You never say.
His point is that 80%+ of all
His point is that 80%+ of all abuse was done by homosexuals to pre adolescent boys. His point is that by not screening active homosexuals out of the seminaries the Church encouraged a tradition of accepting homosexual activity among priests. His point is that so many of the seminaries in the period between 1960 and 1990 were run by the lavendar mafia, that this sort of abuse was not seen as sinful by the homosexuals who running managing and recruiting to our seminaries. Doubt me? Read the book "Goodbye Good Men".
Comparison of Benedict and
Comparison of Benedict and Tom is more of the same, stirring the pot; adding to the distraction which humans enjoy. His birth brought change which is constantly being ignore for the immediate pleasures of life. Mother Theresa showed the way of change by leadership, like Jesus, many of her followers and admirers continue on. When each of us, yes myself, stop talking and start walking, He'll return through our united efforts of true LOVE.
WWJD? Matthew 25, "... I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me ... " Each is called to do so, leaders lead by example not by mere words. When we all stop looking for someone else to do IT, IT will get done and peace and LOVE will reign forever and ever .....
Please Lord, give me another chance, please!
Sobering and helpful. It's a
Sobering and helpful.
It's a scary time for those of us in the church who work with youth. I run a large religious education program and have also spent the last 10 years in youth ministry. It's the level where we're trying to earn back credibility. I'm theologically conservative, I dislike 95% of what NCR publishes, but I'm so grateful for commentary like this. Thanks for the honesty.
John Allen is the premier
John Allen is the premier apologist for Benedict and the Vatican, still trying to make up for his first book criticizing Ratzinger. It's a sophisticated approach, well hidden so that the "fair and balanced" moniker has undeserved currency.
Turning Benedict's Christmas message into a theological examination of proportionalism is an intellectual exercise that masks the realities of episcopal corruption. Easier to intellectualize than face the facts on the ground.
Allen's somersaults to turn all things Vatican into something understandable/ commendable are disgraceful, even to the point of finding merit behind some prelates' motives for expressing anti-semitism, or giving favorable twists to cardinals' ill-formed statements...because, well, they were really misunderstood.
Tom Doyle's points to Allen are on target, and I thank Tom heartily for taking the time to compose his rebuttal. I marvel that he has the patience to do so, given Allen's consistent hauteur about being above the culture wars and such a paragon of "dialogue." It's more as though proximity to yellow and white and the allures of professional advancement are just too enticing. I look elsewhere for probing, meaningful coverage.
Tom writes:
"7. “Defenders of the Vatican, including you, regularly fall back on the standard defenses: the Vatican does business in a way Americans don’t understand; the Vatican wants to let the U.S. solve its own problems; the Vatican uses a unique form of communication which Americans don’t ‘get.’ … If it wants to be understood, the Vatican should abandon its convoluted language and have someone help them learn how to speak directly and to the point.”
Amen. And Allen needs to learn to do the same.
As for passion, here is a quote from Irish moral theologian Fr. Vincent Twomey:
“But the real cause (of the scandal)– and it is frightening – is the lack of expected emotional response to reports about the abuse of children. Nowhere, as far as I can see, was there any expression of horror or outrage by those who were told. Horror and outrage are the natural passions of the good person which God gave us to ensure that we get up and do something in the face of injustice done to others.”
Where is the outrage at Benedict's incessant theological verbiage that serves as a red herring to avoid the crimes (yes, crimes) of hierarchy protecting themselves first? There is no outright admission of criminally endangering children, obstruction of justice, or even perjury. Numerous government investigations spell out the details, in any common sense understanding of those terms.
So-called intent to protect children is negated repeatedly by actions that contradict it. Everything was "unwittingly allowed" in one complicit bishop's view; it just happened, I guess.
Tom Doyle is the premier teller of the hard facts, the specific corruption at hand. No bland rationalizations, but the incriminating evidence so many like Allen somehow find hardly relevant.
Or is it time in the scheme of things for a little shift to rebuild credibility in some quarters?
Carolyn Disco is pitch
Carolyn Disco is pitch perfect!
My fantasy is that one morning I wake up and read in the NY Times that B16 has removed the worthless sycophant William Levada and appointed Dominican Tom Doyle to reclaim the Inquisition as an instrument of peace and reconciliation with the special commission to cleanse especially the hierarchy of all complicity and corruption of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and vulnerable adults.
I snap out of it when I see B16 parading around at midnight mass in his retro vestments with his red Prada shoes, and I realize that our only hope is to completely ignore the hierarchy, keep our money for true corporal works of mercy, deny the church a claim upon the lives of our sons.
Over time, the people will win because the hierarchs will just die off.
Although, like Father Doyle,
Although, like Father Doyle, I too think you, John, are too much of an apologist for the Vatican and their response to this crisis, and as an abuse victim who has had healing conversations with Father Doyle, I give you credit for publishing his memo and treating it and him with respect. I think it is a positive step. Father Doyle is a sincere and decent man, and his work since he put together the massive report to bishops in 1985 (which was ignored)is a testament to his courage and strength of character.
Southern Orders, I would suggest you do not know Father Doyle, for your characterization of him as "angry" is nowhere near what I have experienced. And would you suggest that the Vatican hierarchy, and bishops, are not worthy of castigation for hiding sex crimes against children? You confuse me.
I happen to favor Father
I happen to favor Father Doyle's version and am trying very hard to be open to the Pope's. As someone who worked in the mental health field, my sympathies lie with those young people who were abused by troubled priests. I have understand for both, but my concern is for the young people whose lives were impacted by this abuse. The church did not handle it well at all, regardless of the causes and environment that the Pope believes were factors. That is at the center of the anger and frustration. There was complicity from the two recents Popes on down the hierarchical chain of command and therefore, it will be very difficult for them to do see the situation the way most of us lay people see it. One of the previous comments talks about forgiveness, reconcilliation and peace on earth. For me personally, I found forgivenes and reconcilliation more in therapy than I did in the Catholic church. I know full well that for wholeness and healing you need both the spiritual aspect and the therapeutic to heal the psychic wounds of abuse, whether it be sexual, physical, verbal or emotional abuse. The version of spirituality that the Pope offers doesn't speak to me, perhaps it is intended more for the Curia and the hierarchy of the church.
Lore H., it was exaggerated
Lore H., it was exaggerated belief in "therapy" that caused much if not most of the problems 25-50 years ago in the first place. That is one of the factors that the Pope seems to be referring to, abit indirectly.
Almost all (police, courts, therapists, priests, bishops, laity, etc) were foolishly guilty of this at the time.
I really like John Allen
I really like John Allen because he tries to be fair to all sides of a given issue. From other much reading on the abuse crisis I believe Father Doyle is coming from a place of deep anger and resentment. Given the response of the hierarchy to his prophetic warnings, I can understand why. Still, anger and bitterness are not a helpful centre out of which to act or speak. The logic of the cross cuts through these and leads to a sort of healing we could never attained on our own. I've seen this in the lives of victims of sexual abuse. By the same token, justice must be done and I wonder if Benedict is prepared to bring bishops who have abused and enabled abusers to justice. The pope is a brilliant man, as well, I believe as a good one. But with a life spent in academia and the ecclesial heights (he had one year of parish experience at the beginning of his priesthood) I wonder if really he "gets it." His statements about clerical abuse found in the recent book by Seewald are encouraging (though I found what he had to say about gay clergy very dissapointing). But after so many years of bad governance of the Church by Rome, I'm skeptical.
It is a cause for alarm that
It is a cause for alarm that Rome is viewing these problems as largely the product of "sexual revolution/moral relativism" and not recognizing that much of the dysfunction/tragedy comes from the way church authority has organized itself! A corporate system of all males who are mandated celibate to solidify the "efficiency of a Roman imperial system" should not be surprised that sexual dysfunction, blindness to sexual exploitation and trauma, and deep wounding of sexual credibility with its people is the norm of it ecclesial environment in 2010. We are in serious trouble and the hierarchy has yet to "get it". The problem is not "the people in the pool", it is in the "pipe line to the pool".
The millions of dollars paid in lawsuits were not the result of male priests psychosexually healthy in the beginning and then corrupted by the culture outside the clerical system. These men had their personal problems well formed and repressed by a clerical culture repressive of human sexual energy and arrogant enough to think that you can "switch off sexual energy" within the human person as easily as you flip off a light switch. The "corporate manufacture" of the CHARISM of celibacy in the priesthood and banning the union of the SACRAMENT of marriage with the priesthood has been generating disaster for decades and has injured the mission and credibility of the church in previous centuries.
I believe myself to be a good priest and an appreciated pastoral leader. But I am not a "comfortable cleric". While the Holy Father damns the "moral relativism of this age", the old clerical system, that "enabled" sexual predation to be at home within the clerical culture, is being replicated. The problems we are living in predate the 1960s and 1970s. A new crop of problems will be generated if there is not deep reform of the "clerical box" the priesthood is locked in. Misunderstanding why tens of thousands of men left the priesthood and why we are having trouble with both the numbers and the quality of priesthood candidates accelerates the deterioration and stalls applying the necessary remedies. The clerical status quo is sinking deeper and deeper into crisis and incredibility. I am in the pool with the rest of the people of the church. I want no part of re-enforcing the pipeline feeding the pool. I tread a lot of water these days.
--A priest & pastor of over 35 years in good standing located in a large USA Archdiocese
Although my involvement has
Although my involvement has not been as long or as profound as Tom Doyle’s, I am probably one of the ten people in the world most conversant with the sexual abuse crisis. I have about 300,000 pages of documents and articles in my library, many of which I read in preparation for my book Sacrilege.
I must concur with Doyle almost completely. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the crisis is the almost total lack of empathy that not only the abusers but the bishops and popes have shown to the victims. This is not the response that Jesus would have; it is a response of men with profound narcissistic and even sociopathic tendencies, tendencies fed by false theology and attitudes.
Nor am I convinced that the hierarchy wants to know the truth: no one from the institutional church has contacted me or BishopAccountability, which has a million pages of documents, a collection that exists nowhere else in the world. The bishops know I exist; I happened to be introduced to Archbishop Dolan of New York at a social function (at which Georg Weigel was present); as he turned away he recognized my name and said “I am familiar with your writings,” but neither he nor any other bishop wants to hear what those who have most studied the crisis have to say. They hope we will die off and their version of the story – “We bishops were given bad advice by psychologists but everything is all right now” – will triumph.
The only difference I have from Doyle is that I also place some blame on those in the broader culture who tried to normalize or trivialize adult-child sex. Some “progressive” theologians in the Church, like André Guindon, put these theories in circulation in the Church. Bad theories don’t alone cause crimes, but they don’t help
Thank you, Leon Podles. Your
Thank you, Leon Podles. Your book, Sacrilege, is a must read, a compilation of the facts that most prefer to avoid. I hold different views in some areas, but there is no doubt as to the validity of your vast research:
http://www.amazon.com/Sacrilege-Sexual-Abuse-Catholic-Church/dp/09790279... The reviews are outstanding.
It is unfortunately typical that Dolan would not engage you, despite your vast knowledge. Like most bishops, he shows no interest in a critical examination of the role of clericalism in the scandal.
Dolan prefers instead to whine about coverage by the NYTimes as a way of building his bona fides with deferential Catholics. His exploitation of past discrimination for his own political purposes is shameless.
Thank you for mentioning the impeccable archive gathered by www.BishopAccountability.org. Its work will outlast complicit bishops and stand as an indisputable official record of their criminality. Their lack of outrage is itself an outrage. Such passivity and non-response to victims --- in favor of saving their own reputations --- is still denied by Benedict and other partisans, who find the truth so inconvenient.
Tom Doyle, Jason Berry, and Gerald Renner, stand far above the likes of John Allen in bringing the full scandal to light. Imagine if Allen instead of Berry had covered the scandal in the 1980's for NCR. Perish the thought!
Even after the decades of groundbreaking reporting by Doyle, Berry, et al, Allen is still "explaining" to us unsophisticates how we really don't appreciate all that the hierarchy has done.
It is a very painful part of
It is a very painful part of our history but until women religious also come to terms with their own decades of abuse of minors the church will never heal. While priests who abuse minors and bishops who covered them up should be held accountable so should those women religious communities and individual sisters who for decades verbally, physically and sexually abuse minors in the church. Why is it that our celibate ministers have such a problem with protecting our children? Why have they become so callous and inhumane? May God forgive the crimes against humanity that both these men and women have created through their wretched theology that only their moral authority is supreme instead of following the law of God as understood by the Magesterium for the past 2000 years. The real problem here is that both men and women, who were consecrated to God, beleived that they were above God's law and manipulated this law in order to justify their sins against our children.
When will the Leadership Conference of Women Religious come to terms with their own sins of omission?
Your heartfelt valid comment
Your heartfelt valid comment is noted Mara.
Where else would you have the opportunity to express your message and be heard other than with NCR.
Hopefully they will remain without fear or favour for along time yet.
We are gradually but surely
We are gradually but surely talking about dated issues. Comments like "bishops who enabled should resign" does not make as much sense as they would when the bulk of the problem actually existed since almost all bishops from the 1960-1985 period are retired and most are dead.
And when it was going on, yes, they were following the accepted understanding of the time.
You must be fairly young,
You must be fairly young, Michael, but I'm not! I can assure you that in the 60's and '70's it was not "the accepted understanding of the time" that it was okay to molest kids! The 'accepted understanding of the time' was that if you did molest ANYONE, you would be charged and, if found guilty, be sentenced to prison! If you were an official in any organization and did nothing about the molestation and covered up for the criminal, you would be dishonored as a human being and charged with a crime for aiding and abetting. I was very much alive and teaching in those days, and can assure you that it was NOT the accepted understanding of the time anymore than pedophilia was supported as normal behavior, as Benedict recently suggested it was!
Yes, in the United States, as a society, we have never supported crimes against children. Perhaps in Abu Dhabi, things are different in this regard, but all of these priests and members of the hierarchy that we are discussing, were [and many still are] in the USA.
No rethinking, I am not young
No rethinking, I am not young (62). Some of you people are so worked up you can not think straight. My father was a principal in a public school and he had to deal with pedophile teachers. It was all very quite and took a long time with tenured teachers, one being my 6th grade teacher, a 27 year old single man. This went on for some time.
When I say following the practice of the time, I did not say all was totally ignored, I insist that all was quiet and cloaked.
Yes, the idea that treatment was effective was almost universal, Sportfans.
And what you can not stand is that these people are dead if if alive in hospice care and are now dying off. Keep the issue going for another 5-10 years until all of them are dead and then make a final demand that they be charged with a crime and you will all look like a deranged FOOLS.
Go do something useful for a change.
Michael's comment indicates
Michael's comment indicates how unbelievably successful the bishops have been in spinning their corruption to such distortions as "they were following the accepted understanding of the time."
I don't know whether to throw up my hands in disgust and utter frustration or just know that such deference to clergy is part of Catholic DNA. The blindness just never ends.
Michael, please take the time to read the district attorney, attorney general, grand jury and other government investigations of bishops' conduct to see the facts, the hard truths that you don't know. Try these links at www.BishopAccountability.org for starters:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/pa_philadelphia/Philly_GJ_report.htm - especially the intro to the grand jury report
"Doctors: Church Used Us"
James Gill, a psychiatrist and Jesuit priest who helped start the Institute of Living's program for clergy, said bishops frequently fail to share information about allegations, although he doesn't believe it is an attempt to mislead. He said the church is simply a secretive organization ...
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news9/2002_03_24_Rich_DoctorsChurch...
IL Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke, head of the lay National Review Board created by American bishops to investigate the scandal:
"As we sought the essential reasons for how this, the greatest of all scandals in the history of American Catholicism came about, today I would have to say that what was most important was the discovery that truthfulness, itself, had been the first victim to fall. Without truthfulness, leadership did what it willed; dragging the Church into the murky world of HALF TRUTHS AND COVER-UP.
Make no mistake - as truthfulness disappeared, each of the other great virtues became victims and faded away as well. Charity suffered; kindness was ignored; courage was discarded; and holiness disappeared. Character was traded for secrecy; HONOR WAS BARTERED FOR DISGUISE; AND MORAL EXCELLENCE WAS SILENCED BEFORE IT COULD UTTER A WORD." (caps added)
http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2010/03/truth-shall-set-us-free-respond...
IOW, bishops did not tell the truth, plain and simple.
Lastly, buy Leon Podles' book, "Sacrilege" and see if you get through that still believing bishops innocent, much less, "they were following the accepted understanding of the time."
Carolyn, I have no particular
Carolyn, I have no particular interest in reading what others who did the same or similar things at the time (circa 1970) write about now to cover their own asses in the present.
There has been a massive change in attitudes in the past 4 decades or so about many things. Finally today our understanding of pedophilia has evolved. Dealing with pedophilia seems to require efforts to steer between not doing enough and not getting into witch hunts. Homosexuality has been all but mainstreamed as have other things once considered sinful, or rude or objectionable.
For some who say "celibacy causes pedophilia" and mandatory celibacy should end, I say the machinery for doing this is already in place in the U.S. with the vigorous growth of the diaconate, "permanent" or otherwise. This is something few seem to want to talk about for some strange reason.
The Church will continue to evolve but from its roots. In the United States we are no longer ghettoized. Kennedy was elected President and he serves as an example of what we can all be if we are "not too Catholic". The Church is always in need of renewal and reform, but separating the wheat from the chaff will not be done by setting the wheat field on fire. Catholics and Christians in general will be made in the future, not so much born as in the past. This is more or less a given, I think.
Christianity is not for everyone and there is nothing in Scripture that suggests that it is, or than Christianity should be a social norm. The Koran is different as it suggests totally that Islam is to be a social norm.
I know this issue of sex abuse by priests is the only issue for some. Some have given there lives and careers to it. But it is not the only issue on earth and far from the only practical issue facing the Church.
Here in Abu Dhabi at St Joseph church (cathedral) perhaps the most multi-ethnic Catholic community on earth this issue of sex abuse by priests is not anywhere on the radar. We have no time for such. We are more concerned with the Emir allowing to keep the parishess open in opposition of Islamic pressures, about the rape of our Philippino and Goan girl housemaids by their masters, about human trafficing and preventing the abduction of our girls and boys, about the crushing weight of poverty and injustice, and about the safety of our Franciscian Capuchin priests and bishop. The church is behind a wall hidden and hopefully protected from suicide car bombers. If a local wants to convert, what do we do? If we go through with it they can and be killed (legally)! Whether you believe me does not concern me or affect the truth in the least.
Post new comment