The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionCardinal Castrillón must feel trapped
by John L Allen Jr on Apr. 23, 2010
Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos must feel trapped in a "Twilight Zone" episode, in which, in a flash, the whole course of his life has turned out differently. Now 80, not long ago Castrillón was a consummate Roman powerbroker, a man admired for the nerves of steel that once allowed him to stand up to drug kingpin Pablo Escobar. Novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez at one point hailed his fellow Colombian as "this rustic man, with the profile of an eagle."
Cardinal Darío Castrillón HoyosFor most of the last two decades, Castrillón, prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Clergy from 1996 to 2006, was widely considered a serious contender to become the first Latin American pope.
Today, even if he weren't almost 81, Castrillón would have about as much chance of becoming pope as Sinead O'Connor. As the then-president of a Vatican commission that deals with traditionalist Catholics, he took the blame for the Holocaust-denying bishop fiasco in January 2009. Now Castrillón has achieved global infamy in light of a September 2001 letter he dispatched to a French bishop congratulating him for refusing to report an abuser priest to the police.
Though the letter was actually published on the Internet in 2001, it languished in relative obscurity until a French Catholic publication brought it back to life a couple of weeks ago. Given the current media climate, it immediately became a cause célèbre. Outrage has made Castrillón such a lightning rod that he was forced to back out of a Mass tomorrow at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., over what organizers described as concerns for "tranquility and good order."
By way of background, Castrillón's letter was addressed to Bishop Pierre Pican of Bayeux-Lisieux, France, sentenced by a French court to three months in prison in 2001, though that term was suspended, for failing to denounce Fr. René Bissey, convicted in October 2000 for sexual abuse of eleven minor boys between 1989 and 1996.
"I rejoice to have a colleague in the episcopate that, in the eyes of history and all the other bishops of the world, preferred prison rather than denouncing one of his sons and priests," Castrillón wrote.
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.
A stampede for distance
Over the last two weeks, the rush among church leaders to distance themselves from Castrillón has turned into a mini-stampede.
First up was the Vatican itself. In a rare case of "rapid response," the official Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, had a statement out to reporters almost immediately after stories broke in France.
The letter, Lombardi's statement said, offers "another confirmation of how timely was the unification of the treatment of cases of sexual abuse of minors on the part of members of the clergy under the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
In effect, that was a polite way of saying that Castrillón was part of the problem against which then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, had to struggle in streamlining Vatican procedures for dealing with sex abuse cases.
After Castrillón's appearance in Washington became a bone of controversy, Archbishop Donald Wuerl likewise put space between himself and the Colombian cardinal. Through a spokesperson, Wuerl let it be known that he would not attend Saturday's Mass due to a scheduling conflict. There was no statement of support for Castrillón, no complaint about unfair media coverage.
Wuerl's spokesperson also said that as a cardinal, Castrillón enjoys "universal faculties" -- an indirect way of saying that he didn't need, or ask, Wuerl's permission to show up.
Yesterday, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the U.S. bishops' conference, posted a blog item bluntly saying that Castrillón's 2001 letter illustrates a "disconnect" between the American bishops and one Vatican congregation [presumably, she meant the Congregation for Clergy], as well as possibly inside the Vatican itself. Walsh went on to argue that there is no "wiggle room" in the American sex abuse norms when it comes to cooperation with civil authorities, and that counts for a lot more than a "buck-up letter" from Castrillón to a French bishop.
Needless to say, public talk of a "disconnect" between the American bishops and Rome, or inside the Vatican, is not the usual fare from an official spokesperson for the U.S. bishops.
Bottom line: At least as far as the Vatican and the American bishops are concerned, Castrillón is on his own.
A broader climate
On April 16, Castrillón spoke at a conference on the legacy of John Paul II at a Catholic university in Murcia, Spain, in which he asserted that he had shown his 2001 letter to the late pope who authorized him to send it. Far from being a previously secret "smoking gun," Castrillón said that he had posted the letter at the time on the Web site of the Congregation for Clergy.
According to media accounts, Castrillón draw warm applause from the audience, which included a couple of senior Vatican cardinals.
Given how far and fast many Catholic leaders are running away from Castrillón, it's tempting to conclude that he's a sort of rogue cardinal speaking only for himself. In truth, there's an element in his letter that does reflect a broader climate of opinion at senior levels in the church, even if there's also widespread embarrassment over how Castrillón expressed it.
In a nutshell, there is still considerable ambivalence about the idea of bishops turning their own priests over to the police.
For one thing, Castrillón asserted in Spain that he was congratulating Pican for defending the seal of the confessional. That's a bit murky, given that Pican has given somewhat conflicting accounts of how he learned of Bissey's crimes, especially how direct the connection was to the sacrament. (Under French law, confessional secrets are protected under a category of "professional secrets," though the law makes an exception for crimes committed against children.)
If the issue is truly whether bishops should be willing to go to jail rather than betray the seal of the confessional, then Castrillón would hardly be alone in suggesting that the answer is "yes."
Yet the 2001 letter seems to make a broader argument, which is that putting bishops in the position of reporting priests disrupts the family bond a bishop is supposed to have with his clergy. Traditional Catholic theology teaches that a bishop is both a "brother" to his priests, meaning a fellow member of the clergy, and a "father."
The objection to "mandatory reporting" requirements is therefore that just as a son should be able to share something in confidence with his father, a priest shouldn't have to worry that if he bears his soul to his bishop, the bishop's next phone call will be to the cops.
Some of that ambivalence came through in a recent interview with Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Vatican's top prosecutor on sex abuse cases, in the newspaper of the Italian bishops. Scicluna said the Vatican's policy is that in countries where bishops are required by civil law to report abuse themselves, they should comply.
"That's a very grave matter," Scicluna nonetheless said, "because these bishops are being forced to take a step comparable to a parent who denounces his or her own child."
Where bishops are not required by law to make a report, Scicluna said, they should encourage the victims to make the report -- the idea being that the police need to know what happened, but the bishop should also protect a zone of confidentiality with his priests.
Beyond that concern, prelates such as Castrillón are also old enough to remember what happened in regimes hostile to the church -- whether police states of Latin America, or Communist governments in Eastern Europe -- where clergy were encouraged to inform on one another in order to weaken the church from within, and where refusal to do so was considered a mark of heroic virtue. (Bishops from former Soviet states and from Latin America have sometimes warned against an uncritical embrace of "mandatory reporter" requirements for exactly that reason -- it's a sort of Anglo-Saxon delusion, they say, to believe one can always trust the police and the courts.)
To be sure, even bishops inclined to share those concerns would hardly extol Castrillón's letter -- especially because there's no word of compassion in it for the victims of the French priest, and no condemnation of the broader phenomenon of sexual abuse within the church.
Still, the letter points to an important insight about where things stand in the church with regard to the crisis: By now, there's wide consensus that crimes by a priest should be reported to the police, but how and by whom remains contentious.
Ratzinger and Castrillón
Finally, a footnote about the impact of the Castrillón episode: Ironically, resurrecting that 2001 letter may have doomed Castrillón, but it could actually help Pope Benedict XVI.
Throughout the most recent round of media coverage, there's been a serious mismatch between Pope Benedict's actual record on sex abuse -- as the senior Vatican official who took the crisis most seriously since 2001, and who led the charge for reform -- and outsider images of the pope as part of the problem.
While there are many reasons for that, a core factor is that the Vatican had the last ten years to tell the story of "Ratzinger the Reformer" to the world, and they essentially dropped the ball. That failure left a PR vacuum in which a handful of cases from the pope's past, where his own role was actually marginal, have come to define his profile.
One has to ask, why didn't the Vatican tell Ratzinger's story?
At least part of the answer, I suspect, is because to make Ratzinger look good, they'd have to make others look bad -- including, of course, Castrillón, as well as other top Vatican officials. Lurking behind that concern is a deeper one, which is that to salvage the reputation of Benedict XVI it might be necessary to tarnish that of Pope John Paul II.
In this case, however, Castrillón has inadvertently licensed the Vatican and church officials around the world to use him as a foil, effectively waiving a cardinal's traditional immunity from criticism.
From here on out, when spokespersons insist that Pope Benedict fought inside the Vatican for reform, the world will have a much clearer picture of what his opposition looked like. At stake wasn't just the question of cooperation with the police. Castrillón was part of a block of Vatican officials who thought the sex abuse crisis was fueled by media hysteria, that "zero tolerance" was an over-reaction, and that removing priests from ministry without lengthy and cumbersome canonical trails is a betrayal of the church's legal tradition.
That's important to keeping the record straight, because the truth is that the real choice in Rome over the last ten years vis-à-vis the sex abuse crisis was never between Ratzinger and perfection -- it was between Ratzinger and Castrillón.
* * * * *
Jason Berry filed this story to the NCR Web site yesterday: Vatican cardinal bucked US bishop on abuse, Castrillon took up cause of priest who admitted molesting minors.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
I'd like to think this was a
I'd like to think this was a matter of the "seal of the confessional." But if Castrillón had a reason to think so, wouldn't this imply that Bishop Pican had already violated the seal (i.e. by discussing the particulars with outsiders, Castrillón or others).
There is a reason why a Canon
There is a reason why a Canon Law exists prohibiting a priest's going to confession to his own bishop.
That is a *very* important
That is a *very* important point, and it would be useful to us non-canon-lawyers to have a citation of the law in question.
Canon 392.2, perhaps? Just
Canon 392.2, perhaps?
Just guessing.
There's another canon (forgot citation) that prohibits novice directors/assistants and seminary rectors from hearing confessions of their students unless the latter request it --- or something to this effect.
That is very true. I am not
That is very true. I am not certain regarding the canon in question, but when I was in seminary, the director of the college seminary, the rector of the seminary, the associate director, the vocation directors and academic dean and dean of students were all prohibited from hearing our confessions or serving as our spiritual directors, even if we asked them to. Indeed, at one point my spiritual director (an excellent one!) was appointed a monsignor and named diocesan chancellor, at that point he could no longer serve as my SD since he was now part of the "external forum", he served on the seminary board and would have to pass approval on the candidates for ordination.
The rule is simply that those who are in the external forum (making decisions about whether or not I would continue in the seminary, discipline me for any rule breaking, grading my papers and tests, etc.) cannot be involved in internal forum matters (confession, spiritual direction), and vice versa.
The point is that if internal and external forums interact in such a manner, it will make it much more difficult for the priest involved (and religious superiors, bishops, etc) to do their job properly. Further, if I know that my confessor is also my seminary rector, that the person I tell my sins to is also the person who will decide whether I progress toward ordination, I may feel less free to confess my sins, knowing that, even if he did not use them against me, he will, nonetheless, know about them and they might influence his decisions, even if only by accident.
A most useful addition to the
A most useful addition to the discussion, Clint. This illustrates one (of many, yes) "rules" of the Church that make great sense, protect seminarians/novices/anyone in formation, and separate the purely spiritual from the administrative. Thank you for the clarifications.
What seems to be protected is
What seems to be protected is not so much the canonization of JP2 as events and people that lead to the irregular and speedy canonization of Escriva. A lead canon lawyer working for Mexican victims of Fr Maciel, the founder of the Legionnaires of Christ, was an ex OD priest, Fr. Antonio Roqueñi. Considering how influential OD was at the Vatican at the time, why was Fr. Roqueñi stone walled? Navarro Valls, the OD Vatican spokes person under JP2, would not respond to queries by Berry at the time. Is it because OD needed Maciel’s support for the irregular canonization of Escriva during that period? Another prominent OD Curia member, Cardinal Herranz, is on record to being against reporting of abuse to civilian authorities. Why? Was it to protect “good fruits” (e.g.: money and influence) that people like Maciel brought? Cardinal Somalo, who has close OD family ties and a strong supporter, is now implicated by Berry to have received kickbacks. Cardinal Hoyo, also a Curia major supported of OD during JP2, was applauded during a recent speech at an arch conservative Spanish Catholic university with strong OD ties, for having congratulated a French bishop for not reporting an abusing priest in 2001. The role of OD in the corruption at the Holy See needs to be accurately examined.
I think you are clutching at
I think you are clutching at straws. As a member of Opus Dei I say, and have complete freedom to do so(!), that the Cardinal's opinions are his and his alone and not opus Dei's.
Secondly, God supplied the miracles for St Josemaria's process so there can be no doubt he is in Heaven ie a saint.
"That's important to keeping
"That's important to keeping the record straight, because the truth is that the real choice in Rome over the last ten years vis-à-vis the sex abuse crisis was never between Ratzinger and perfection -- it was between Ratzinger and Castrillón."
John, this only goes to show how insulated the Vatican is from reality. Large parts of the Curia still want their Medieval privilege of immunity from civil law. When Bernard Law was showered with honors at the Vatican after fleeing in disgrace from Boston, the old boys club at the Vatican let the world know it is on the side of enabler bishops and their predator priests and against the victims. Yes, Ratzinger was an improvement over Castrillon Hoyos, but that ain't saying much.
Steve
"Throughout the most recent
"Throughout the most recent round of media coverage, there's been a serious mismatch between Pope Benedict's actual record on sex abuse -- as the senior Vatican official who took the crisis most seriously since 2001, and who led the charge for reform -- and outsider images of the pope as part of the problem."
Really? A mismatch? This would be more believable if B16 had done on his own what he has recently done in response to worldwide pressure when he was first elected.
I have always enjoyed John's reporting on Rome. It's always had a ring of reality about it. But with statements like this and others in recent articles, I'm beginning to think those critics who say he has lost his objectivity vis-a-vis Rome and the Vatican are correct. If so, this would be tragic in its own right.
Pobrecito Cardinal and the
Pobrecito Cardinal and the rest of the PR machines rushing to explain him and his cohort!
"putting bishops in the
"putting bishops in the position of reporting priests disrupts the family bond a bishop is supposed to have with his clergy. Traditional Catholic theology teaches that a bishop is both a "brother" to his priests, meaning a fellow member of the clergy, and a 'father.'"
Perhaps this clerical culture, held together by the requirement of celibacy and maleness,needs to be seriously re-evaluated. The sooner the better.
The Pope should banish the
The Pope should banish the cardinal from Rome and tell him to stick his ridiculous cappa magna up his pontifical you-know-what!
I actually make an effort to
I actually make an effort to try to discern what motivates the action or thinking of people with whom I disagree. In the case of this worldwide story, I can actually perceive that "protecting the church" might have been a value reflexively held by many bishops. In the case of Cardinal Castrillon, I must count myself totally baffled. The Tuscon Bishop was telling him that the church was in danger. What "value" could the Cardinal possibly have been upholding?
John, this was a good
John, this was a good background piece. However your choice of words (or lack thereof) in parts of this blog interest me.
For instance, toward the beginning you mention that Cardinal Castrillon "was forced to back out of A MASS tomorrow ...." That's certainly true but setting the record straight might be better served if you had mentioned that Mass is to be a celebration of a Pontifical Tridentine High Mass at our National Basilica (three years in planning.) It appears to me that there is a bit of back-story here not general knowledge. We've been told there is NO program to mandate the practice of pre-Vatican II liturgy, but these things repeatedly sneak onto the public stage,thank God.
Then toward the end of your piece there's a phrase stating that a block of Vatican officials who thought that the sexual abuse crisis (not sexual abuse cover-up crisis?)was "fueled by media HYSTERIA." If my memory serves me correctly we've been barraged through the years by official statements alleging media antipathy or prejudice which now officialdom and loyalists have morphed into a "campaign" akin to anti-church Nazi programs. As a good journalist striving for balance I'm surprised you tilted content in this fashion.
Does NCR really intend for
Does NCR really intend for John Allen to serve as apologist for the Vatican and Benedict?? Enough already.
Does NCR really intend for
Does NCR really intend for John Allen to serve as apologist for the Vatican and Benedict?? Enough already.
What is this? The Bishop is
What is this? The Bishop is the father and brother of his priests?
Where is that written in scripture or cannon law? Or for that matter, civil law,which incidentally exempts them from property taxes and who know what else in the tax code.
The priest is in fact the employee of the church of which the bishop is the manager.
Ask any lawyer who has sued the church. The church is a corporate entity.
There should be employee handbooks which spell out the responsiblity of each and the consequences of
behaviors.
What century do they live in? (Don't tell me. I hate to think about it.)
Time for the clergy to come out of their time warp and grow up and be responsible clerics.
Other articles in the NCR
Other articles in the NCR indicate that this is not a lone incident in the Cardinal's past. How sad. How infuriating. Those members of the hierarchy who still don't get it should be retired forthwith. They continue to do great damage, to the Church at large and to the victims of such vile abuse.
There has been a sharp drop-off on Mass attendance within my diocese since these scandals came to light in 2002, and we were only lightly touched by them. To hear senior officials advocate sheltering the perpetrators of such evil is an enormous scandal in itself.
I keep hearing Jesus' remark that it would be better for anyone who harms one of these little children if a millstone were fastened around their necks....
Now comes John Allen
Now comes John Allen canonizing Benedict as "Ratzinger the Reformer."
BXVI had five precious years from his coronation to the current mood of some wanting to convict him in civil court. If he were the reformer, upon becoming pope, he could have addressed the issue of clerical sexual abuse , this "filth" he was wallowing in his office, proactively, rather than now, reactively. He could have begun by making the American guidelines universal. It would have indisputably made him an agent of change rather than a reluctant one now due to universal pressure..
When he visited the US two yrs. ago I had a piece published in the Wash. Post the day before his arrival, "A Time for Penance, Not Pomp." I suggested then that he put on penitential garb and lead the Amer. church in such a gathering rather than all the triumphal ones he would indulge in. His meeting with a few victims was downplayed as much as possible. He wasn't willing to publicly acknowledge this moral embarrassment. Now, belatedly, he is calling for penance! Hard to fathom how he is a reformer!. If he is, it is "Ratzinger, the Reluctant or Accidental Reformer."
John Allen dissects the curial and papal power plays that Benedict is seeking to balance. Jesus statement should have some relevance, "For this was I born. For this I came into the world - to bear witness to the truth." Truth becomes the first casualty in war, so also in this curial war of personalities.
As the Letter to the Hebrews teaches, "Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus who is the source of our inspiration and who will perfect our faith." Benedict said in his letter to the Irish that this scandal is a crisis of faith. Was he projecting his own lack of faith in keeping his eyes fixed on Jesus?
Fr Emmett Perhaps you have
Fr Emmett Perhaps you have not read the John Jay Report. Since the early 1980s (ie, under JPII and Card. Ratz), the number of abusive priests and abuse cases fell by 95%.
Ninety. five. percent. JPII and BXVI saved us from the disasterous 1960s/1970s madness, when someone thought it was a good idea to take the lead from the sewer that is popular culture. Open the windows, indeed. Look at the filth that was blown in.
Check the data. Priests ordained since JPII took over represent less than 10% of the total abuse cases; compared w/ more than 60% for the Vatican II generation.
Hecuvajob, John XXIII and Paul VI!
Benedict continues the yeoman's job of cleaing up, and fortunately the VII bishops like Weakland, Cummins and Mahoney - protectors of abusers all - are moving on. The new generation like Bambera (my fellow Scrantonian), Dolan and Gomez don't have that sense of inferiority that infected the VII gang.
We're moving on. Lots of work to do. But if you don't want to do the hard work, stay out of the way.
Wait 15 years and then see
Wait 15 years and then see what the abuse level is for the past 10. Today's eight year olds won't be reporting in for awhile. Oh, and wait for the accusations which are just starting to come in from Latin America, Africa and South East Asia. Don't make the mistake of extrapolating data from the US to these regions.
To Anonymous
To Anonymous Scrantonian:
We'll never know the incidence of sexual abuse that occurred before 1950 in the U.S. church, will we?
I wouldn't boast about the purported improvement shown by your numbers.
God only knows the likely rampant abuse of kids before 1950 when the triumphalist, monarchical, ordained-on-their-pedestals, Tridentine church was in full bloom!!!
As for the "filth" in the
As for the "filth" in the Church, cleanse thyself, O priest of God.
He is trapped in his own
He is trapped in his own hubristic sense of superiority.
The "French Catholic
The "French Catholic publication" which brought Castrillón Hoyos's letter to light is called GOLIAS, is published at Lyon and its editor is called Christian Terras.
I would be very surprised if Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos ever took any decision without the approval of Pope John Paul II.
Together with the late López Trujillo, he made life extremely difficult for the Brazilian Cardinals, Bishops and theologians. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, was quite aware of their activities, as eventually History will show.1
This almost sympathetic
This almost sympathetic treatiment of Cardinal Castrillon is sickening. One only need read the attachments of Jason Berry's article to see the kind of unprincipled demigogue the Cardinal was/is. He defended the priest's proposals for preferred treatment, a "dignified" retirement with salary, and right to exercise ministry in spite of one documented abuse, further allegations, refusal to undergoe treatment, admission by the priest of other abuses, blatant admission that he would deny his admission, and attempt to virually blackmail the bishop. This is a "son" and "brother" who warrants such a degree of protection? This is what is expected of a father?
It is one thing for a journalist to report facts and let the reader come to opinion. This is not really a factual presentation; it is a muted apologia for an egomaniac, and "agent of the darkness". With "fathers" and "brothers" like Castriollon, it is no wonder that the sexual abuse of children and minors was not even more widespread.
Just when is the pope going
Just when is the pope going to call an eucumenical councel to reform the Church?
Been there done that, and
Been there done that, and this pope is among those who quashed the commanded reforms.
So there are internal
So there are internal politics and different viewpoints about things inside the curia? That may help explain why a pope's taking a position on an issue (consider Paul VI and Humanae Vitae), even when widely communicated, fails to get wide respect within the church. If the curia widely supported a decision, the bishops elsewhere would be more inclined to respect the same decision rather than (as seems to have been the case the last fifty years) just "doing their own thing."
TeaPot562
Good, informative article,
Good, informative article, John. Why is it that the secular media cannot have access to the same information.
On 4-23-10, under "From Miami Herald Wire Services" authorship,the Miami Herald printed the gist of the story. Nonetheless, it added (and I wonder if it is true and if you have any knowledge about it) that, "Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos also said in a radio interview that Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, was involved in a 2001 decision to praise a French bishop for shielding a priest who was convicted of raping minors."
Could you possibly find out if the Herals's charge is accurate?
Thank you.
Scicluna said, "That's a
Scicluna said, "That's a very grave matter, because these bishops are being forced to take a step comparable to a parent who denounces his or her own child."
1. These priest deviants were/are ADULTS, not a bishop’s “child”. It was the predator’s victims who were the actual children and youth (minors incapable of legal consent). Where is the “fatherly” concern for the REAL children in this picture? Where is the pastoral concern for the damage done to their souls? Castrillón feels “trapped”? He cannot begin to imagine how ‘trapped’ the victims felt and still feel.
.
2. Harboring a criminal from the law is itself a crime. Personal relationship to the criminal is irrelevant. Would a bishop also give safe harbor to a priest who committed murder or robbed a bank at gunpoint? Apparently so. This is stupidity gone to seed. It is not “denouncing”… it is reporting the crime of sexual assault and battery to prevent further criminal activity by the known predator. It is not merely a “moral” issue of garden variety sexual sin between consenting adults.
.
3. Would Castrillón take such a “fatherly” posture of criminal complicity with a lay person? No. This is about clerical secrecy and privilege. It is the fundamental flaw in the Roman system of governance, from which all other dysfunction flows. No one in the Roman hierarchy wants to change their ‘small-t tradition’ of royal privilege, even though it flies in the face of our Lord’s words to his disciples that they are to be servants and not lord themselves over others.
.
4. Castrillón is far from being alone with his pathological notions regarding clergy and their deviant behavior. His overtly displayed arrogance lurks covertly among the majority of those holding the power within the Church. The extent of clerical sexual predation is the “fruit” of this arrogance. By those fruits you can know them.
.
5. No matter how the Roman hierarchy and its defenders attempt to parse words and minimize these crimes against God’s lambs, or minimize the culpability of predators and their accomplices, there is not enough ermine, lace and magna cappa fabric on the planet to cover this hideous evil parading as supreme clericalism.
.
Jesus wept over Jerusalem and now He weeps over his Church… for the same reasons.
Heads Up! Pretty soon Jesus
Heads Up! Pretty soon Jesus is gonna run out of tears.
If Castrillon feels "trapped"
If Castrillon feels "trapped" - GOOD! Hopefully, the Pope will
fire him...
Actually, in a subsequent
Actually, in a subsequent interview, subsequent to his naming John Paul II as approving the letter, Castrillon said that in fact Ratzinger was in the meeting also and also approved the letter to be sent to the French bishop. The newspaper report of this subsequent interview was in Spanish, and I'm not sure if it got translated to English. But whatever. If we are now to watch these men scurrying about pointing fingers, it's just not a good look for anyone. Is there any point at which they will express proper outrage at the idea of children being raped by anyone, authorized by anyone, and/or congratulated by anyone?
Could you provide a link?
Could you provide a link? It's not as if no NCR readers can read Spanish.
For one thing, Castrillón
For one thing, Castrillón asserted in Spain that he was congratulating Pican for defending the seal of the confessional. That's a bit murky, given that Pican has given somewhat conflicting accounts of how he learned of Bissey's crimes, especially how direct the connection was to the sacrament.
There was no connection at all. Cardinal Castrillon either misremembered the events or spoke a deliberate untruth. His letter of September 8, 2001, makes no reference at all to the confessional.
News reports at the time of the bishop's trial in 2001 indicate clearly that some of the parents of the priest's victims reported his crimes to the Vicar-General, who then informed the bishop. The court rejected the bishop's "professional secrets" defense because the information about the priest's sexual abuse did not come from the priest himself, but from a third party (the Vicar-General).
By the way, in an interview aired on a European radio station last April 2nd (Good Friday!), Bishop Pican -- who has now reached retirement age -- was asked his thoughts about the events of nine years ago. He answered that placed in the same situation he would act exactly as he did previously and would refuse to report an abusive priest to the police. He would prefer to go to jail rather than betray his conscience by informing on a priest.
"He would prefer to go to
"He would prefer to go to jail rather than betray his conscience by informing on a priest."
And this is another swipe at victims for informing on their abusers. It also demonstrates a malformed conscience and a pathetic understanding of the teachings of Jesus.
thanks very much posting
thanks very much posting this. it clears up a nagging question. and it catches C-H in a bald-faced lie when he claimed this month that in 2001 he was protecting the seal of the confessional. makes one wonder about all the other spins coming out of rome and germany.
Even if Castrillon ran the
Even if Castrillon ran the letter pass JPII, it is still deplorable. If JPII did see the letter and approved it, that is even more deplorable.
The cardinal could get himself out of his trap if he acknowledged not only that his support of the French bishop was totally inappropriate but also his congratulating the bishop encouraged him to violate criminal laws by failing to turn over the priest to the police.
When the bishops start taking responsibility for their actions, they may regain some credibilites. People no longer accept their excuses.
"In truth, there's an element
"In truth, there's an element in his letter that does reflect a broader climate of opinion at senior levels in the church, even if there's also widespread embarrassment over how Castrillón expressed it." Indeed so. We know, because Castrillón has told us, that it does reflect the opinion of at least one senior member of the church, namely the late Pope John Paul II. Five years after his death the former superstar's reputation is rapidly crumbling, and rightly so. The present crisis is his legacy.
Might be necessary? "Lurking
Might be necessary?
"Lurking behind that concern is a deeper one, which is that to salvage the reputation of Benedict XVI it might be necessary to tarnish that of Pope John Paul II."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125788687&ft=1&f=1016
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/opinion/12douthat.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100031816/pope-john-pau...
SUBITO SANTO?
I doubt it....
JP II tarnished his own
JP II tarnished his own reputation by engaging in these actions. Even if they are not brought to light, they still occurred, and caused an entire universe of damage. People that demand he be made a saint based on limited information have a right to "the rest of the information," even if it could alter their views.
I'm sorry, John, but your
I'm sorry, John, but your attempt to rewrite history doesn't work.
Ratzinger's letter to all the bishops reserving prosecution of
child sex abuse by priests to his jursdiction came out months before Castrillon's letter supporting secrecy was distributed with JP 2's
approval and without Ratzinger's objection.
Ratzinger's letter places child sex abuse cases within the pontifical secret
in which only priests participate and any information leaking from
the proceedings was to be punished by excommunication.
There was no language allowing referral of crimes to civil authorities;
the pontifical secret implies it is forbidden and Castrillon's
letter was consistent with Ratzinger's.
Bertone, Ratzinger's past and current chief assistant strongly supported
the maintenance of secrecy in 2002. Ratzinger also refused to answer
questions from reporters at that time, even slapping a reporter
on the hand for asking them.
Whatever "Ratzinger the Reformer" did for ten years was done behind
this wall of secrecy which was precisely the problem.
Ratzinger may indeed wish to change this policy now. But it
is dishonest to pretend he wasn't part of it. After all,
he was always JP 2's loyal assistant.
The problem then and now was the reservation of all church power
to the clerical boys club which believed it was above scrutiny.
Regrettably Ratzinger has been making it worse, most recently
in his new canon law reserving governance to priests and bishops.
If he were sincere in changing the system, he would eliminate
the cleric-only proceedings that caused the problems.
He would write a new canon law in which priests and bishops
are forbidden from exercising governance without the participation
of lay men and women.
John Allan's analysis, with
John Allan's analysis, with its clear, sympathetic political and historical grasp of the effect of sharply different national contexts, is simply great journalism. What an enlightening article! As a former Catholic journalist myself, it takes my breath away.
The Mass at the Basilica in
The Mass at the Basilica in Washington is to be a traditional Latin Mass. Does anyone seriously think Archbishop Wuerl would attend regardless of who is celebrating it, or even if a herd of elephants attempted to drag him to it?
Also, regarding the Vatican not telling Cardinal Ratzinger's "story", are we to seriously believe the main stream media is actually interested in Cardinal Ratzinger's story? After all, he represents the ultimate bugaboo when it comes to American culture and a number of American Catholics since he is attempting to return the Church to some of her more ancient forms of worship, which is anathema to them.
John, time to come back to
John, time to come back to the Christian faith and get out of the Vatican! You write: "That's important to keeping the record straight, because the truth is that the real choice in Rome over the last ten years vis-à-vis the sex abuse crisis was never between Ratzinger and perfection -- it was between Ratzinger and Castrillón." You've been there too long and it is affecting your thinking. Throughout this entire crisis, the choice has always been between Ratzinger and Christianity [not Castrillon-----he's lost]. Admittedly, Ratzinger, as far as we know at this point, never wrote a congratulatory letter to someone who obstructed justice in a felony. WOW--------that makes him a Master Reformer! I don't think so! For decades Ratzinger has held positions of power in the Vatican and was very knowledgeable about what was going on in the back rooms. Did he ever hold a press conference and expose all the sexual rot that he knew about? Did he ever publish an article in a religious periodical demanding reform? Did he ever publicly reprimand and cause a demotion of an offender at the hierarchical level? Did he ever call for a Third Vatican Council to begin a restructuring process in the hierarchy of the church? Of course not! That's why he was made Pope; he was one of the good ole boys! And for this, you give him the status of Reformer Exemplar! Wake up, John, and smell the rot all around you!
If JA should "wake up and
If JA should "wake up and smell the rot," and (HEAVEN FORBID!) actually report it, he'd go directly from toeing the party line to the unemployment line.
There is little hope of this
There is little hope of this pope solving the the cover-up crisis while he shelters Cardinals Law and Levada from justice.
Castrillon's talk of "seal of the confessional" is clearly a smoke screen, he should have followed King Carlos's advice to Hugo Chavez: "Porque no te callas." (Why don't you shut up).
"That's a very grave matter,"
"That's a very grave matter," Scicluna nonetheless said, "because these bishops are being forced to take a step comparable to a parent who denounces his or her own child."
If Scicluna actually had a son he wouldn't be so quick to make this bishop/priest relationship'comparable'. It isn't comparable. In fact it's hubris to elevate what is principally and employee/employer relationship to familial relationship. In fact, I see the use of this terminology as an excuse to underline priestly obedience and in effect turn the relationship between priest/bishop into one of indentured serf/master.
But on the flip side, it gives permisiion for a bishop to place the well being of a predator ahead of his victims. The priest is the family member, the abused victim becomes an enemy of the family. This notion also allows for the 'family' abuse and grooming of seminarians and young priests, which we know is generational in some dioceses.
If one judges a concept by it's fruits, this notion of priestly sons is a rotten fruit for priests and the Church, but most especially victims.
Interesting point that
Interesting point that bishops from Latin American and former soviet states tend to resist mandatory reporting guidelines on the premises that one can not always tust the police or the courts. Coming from areas in which the police and the courts are historically the bad guys, this makes sense. But to a North American (from the USA or Canada) it makes little sense. So the question becomes, how does a worldwide organization create policies to protect children that make sense in the cultures to which they will be applied, and how does one publicize these policies without alienating people from another culture? Without a doubt, if policies that required mandatory reporting were put in place in eastern Europe, I'm sure many there would take umbrage at it, and if they are not, when Americans or western Eurpoeans hear about it, they will be offended.
A coherent, pastoral response to this crisis will require more than just a knee jerk reaction to the media and victim's rights groups. It will require creativity, an in depth understanding of human behavior and child abuse, cultural sensitivity, and an abillity to effectively publicize results. This is enough to have at least 1 person dedicated full time to working on it. One might even suggest that the Vatican create a seperate comission to do nothing but work on responding effectively to this crisis.
If JP II's reputation needs
If JP II's reputation needs to be tarnished, so be it. That's a small price to pay for truth. Is someone who approved of shielding a child abuser, and who protected a priest who fathered children, raped seminarians, and even attempted to rape his own children (Fr. Maciel), really need to be made a saint? And why the push to canonize him so quickly? Was it to keep negative aspects from becoming public?
Excellent piece, Mr. Allen.
Excellent piece, Mr. Allen. I don't think we'll be hearing much from Cardinal Castrillon in the future.
By the way, I firmly believe you are the only credible writer the NCR has on its staff.
Maybe it is my Americanism
Maybe it is my Americanism coming out, but I genuinely have no understanding of the notion that when your son commits a violent crime, you shouldn't have to report it. Wouldn't you WANT to report it, as painful as that may be? Don't you WANT your children to experience the consequences of their actions, to know that justice must be rendered when they have wronged another person?
I have several sons. I can honestly say that if any of them committed a crime---especially a violent crime against an innocent child---I would report them. I would give them the opportunity to do the right thing and turn themselves in first. (How come THIS is never mentioned as a possibility? Bishops encouraging guilty priests to turn themselves in?? Has no bishop ever thought of doing such a thing?? In this case that caused Hoyos to praise the bishop for harboring a criminal instead of turning him in, the bishop had no doubt this man was guilty, as he had admitted to it) If they did not turn themselves in within a short timeframe, then I would be forced to do it for them.
How do you sleep at night knowing violent members of your family are roaming the world, free to rape and molest at will?
Granted, I don't buy this whole father/son relationship between bishop/priest anyway, but even if we grant them that relationship, using it to justify not turning in a violent criminal makes no sense at all. Besides being horribly negligent toward the safety of the community at large, it is unconscionable to put your own sons back in situations that are clearly occasions of heinous sin to them. You don't do that to people you love. You would never put a person you love in a situation in which they clearly are in danger of not only hurting many others, but of damning their souls to an eternity of suffering in Hell.
Is this a mafia notion? That you protect "family" at all cost? Because it certainly isn't a Christian notion. It's a crime against the children, and it's a moral crime against the perpetrator to keep putting him in situations in which he clearly will almost definitely sin again.
It's sickening.
Re Denouncing Son- I also was
Re Denouncing Son-
I also was confused by equating harboring the criminal with fatherly action. Love is not always fixing problems, or denying the truth to protect the "child" but calling that child to maturity through helping them be accountable for their actions (ex. taking the shoplifting child back to the store to confess and make restitution). A fatherly or motherly love walks with the "child" regardless of their mistakes and not only if the world thinks their "child" is perfect. Maybe if these men had raised real children they would have a better understanding of the personal vulnerability that love asks of us. We love and walk with the saintly and sinner family member equally, as Jesus did. How strange to equate lack of accountablity with family love.
"putting bishops in the
"putting bishops in the position of reporting priests disrupts the family bond a bishop is supposed to have with his clergy. Traditional Catholic theology teaches that a bishop is both a "brother" to his priests, meaning a fellow member of the clergy, and a 'father.'"
Where does the laity fit in? Aren't they as much children to be concerned with as the priests??
Why are we wasting all of
Why are we wasting all of this verbiage on these criminals. They are guilty by association and have been for a couple of thousand years. We are talking about this issue as if it is a contemporary one. Millions of young people have been either enslaved, killed, or abused by the corrupt leaders of our church. If we are to be judged on this issue through pure association then we are all guilty.
Short of disbanding the church I don't know what to do about those of us who have never been part of the clergy or employees of the church. It would not bother me at all however to see the entire episcopate (all of Rome)cleaned out re-designed and re-started. I'm disgusted with these poorly formed humanoids.
Paternalism. Infantilism.
Paternalism. Infantilism. Secrecy. Arrogance.
Dysfunction.
The real problem is wider
The real problem is wider than just Card. Castrillon Hoyos, it is that the Roman curia as a whole is an introverted, self-focused gerontocracy living entirely in a little world of its own. In any other profession the likes of Card. Castrillon Hoyos would have been forced into retirement ten years earlier, certainly well before senility.
I felt trapped too when I was
I felt trapped too when I was being sexually abused by my older brother. I told my parents and they did not intervene. So the abuse continued for 5 years. From age 10 to age 15, I not only felt trapped -- I WAS trapped.
I have no sympathy for Hoyos.
And these are the same guys who preach about being pro-life.
Talk about a disconnect.
If you feel trapped, try
If you feel trapped, try letting the truth set you free.
For starters, Cardinal Castrillon could hold a press conference and say that he acted in ways that he now knows were seriously wrong. He could warn the church that the insular clerical culture is powerful and can blind its members to what should be clear distinctions between right and wrong, as it did him. He then could say that, while he cannot undo the evils of the past, he will spend the rest of his career fighting for changes in the church culture that puts the interests of the organization and the elite ahead of the victims. Finally, he should say that he prays that these efforts will be seen as sincere and, at least in some little way, as atoning for the harm done in the past.
The only silver lining here
The only silver lining here is that Castrillon would have, perhaps, made a worse pope than Ratzinger ...
Castrillon is as irrelevant
Castrillon is as irrelevant as the whole bunch of decrepit elderly men who rule the Curia & Vatican!
If women ran Holy Mother the Church, we'd not be in this seemingly unending mess!
1. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos'
1. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos' best -- and only -- defense may be that he was mislead by Bishop Pican, but in light of the facts that emerged when the latter was finally put on trial for failing to report a sex crime against a minor (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1311976/Bishop-on-trial-over-p...) he cannot continue to make the "seal of the confessional" argument in good faith.
2. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has publicly implicated the Pope in the sequence of events leading to the infamous letter. "On Thursday, he said the letter was the product of a high-level meeting at which Ratzinger was present. 'It was a meeting of cardinals. Therefore the current pope (Benedict XVI), who at that time was a cardinal, was present. The pope (John Paul II) was never at those meetings. However the Holy Father was indeed present when we spoke about this matter in the council, and the cardinals ruled.'" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/22/AR201004...) So, according to the cardinal, the Pope was present when the letter was drafted. His only defense, therefore, can be that he did not have the power to speak out and stop it.
The simple truth here is that
The simple truth here is that Pican's seal of confession defense was bogus. Pican's Vicar General had learned of the priest's abuse from the mother of the victim and had informed him of it well in advance of any confession. In fact, the Vicar General testified to as much at trial. That's blow number one to the idea of the seal, it was abused by Pican. Blow number two is the idiotic current position of the Church respecting the seal, that its not to be honored if local civil law so dictates. Here the Church makes herself a creature of the civil authority, an infamy no matter what the reason. I'm beginning to have real questions about the hierarchy. In order to fix a political difficulty over horrible decisions when they were made about abuse, to please the secular world they now throw an important principle under the bus. Do they ever do anything right? I'm nearing the end of the line with these folks.
If the bishop and priest are
If the bishop and priest are family, what are the laity? Servants, slaves or animals to be used as the clergy see fit? Don't bishops have a duty to the flock?
Post new comment