The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionLaicizing bishops, a movie flap, Ireland and America, and Vatican II
by John L Allen Jr on Apr. 21, 2011
On any list of storylines the Vatican would not have wanted to see in the run-up to Easter, not to mention the looming beatification of John Paul II on May 1, the case of Belgian Bishop Roger Vangheluwe would have to finish pretty much at the top. Just when you think the sexual abuse crisis can’t become any more appalling, or surreal, along comes Vangheluwe to prove that it can.
Last year, Vangheluwe resigned as the bishop of Bruges after admitting he had repeatedly abused a nephew for 13 years, beginning when Vangheluwe was a priest and continuing while he was a bishop. On April 12, the Vatican announced that Vangheluwe has been barred from any public exercise of ministry and was to leave Belgium for treatment while the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reviews his case.
The clear intent was that Vangheluwe, 74, would stay out of sight while the Vatican figured out what to do.
Instead, Vangheluwe went on Flemish TV on April 14 and proceeded to make things significantly worse. Among other points, he admitted to abusing a second nephew, denied being a pedophile, claimed that his victims had not objected, and called his behavior “a little piece of intimacy” rather than “abuse or physical violence.” Those comments brought calls from senior Belgian politicians, and even from several Belgian bishops, for swift punishment by Rome.
By “punishment,” people typically mean laicization, or formal removal from the episcopacy and the priesthood. (Of course, police and prosecutors in Belgium have to decide whether Vangheluwe will face criminal charges. That still leaves the question, however, of what ecclesiastical penalties he should face.)
On background, Vatican officials say they’re following events in Belgium carefully, and they’re aware of the damage the Vangheluwe interview has done. In fact, they say, the interview was so bizarre that it raises questions about Vangheluwe’s mental stability and his grasp of his situation. On that basis, they say, a period of monitoring and evaluation has to unfold before a final decision can be reached, away from the pressure created by intense media attention. Bottom line: We may be talking months, not days, before a final decision comes.
While we wait, two notes about laicization and bishops.
First, some Belgian commentators, including a couple of canon lawyers who ought to know better, have suggested that the church has no process for laicizing a bishop. In reality, bishops certainly can be laicized, although it’s extremely rare. Two recent cases in point are Fernando Lugo, a former bishop in Paraguay who was laicized in 2008 after being elected the country’s president, and Emmanuel Milingo, laicized in 2009 after getting married, founding a breakaway “Married Priests Now!” movement, and ordaining bishops in defiance of Rome.
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.
Both respect for the episcopal office and for the theology of the priesthood as being for life counsel caution, but the Lugo and Milingo cases demonstrate that laicization of a bishop is nonetheless possible under what the Vatican defined in its Dec. 17, 2009, decree on Milingo as “most extraordinary” circumstances.
Also worth noting is the letter to the bishops of the world from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in May 2010, which indicated that Pope Benedict XVI had confirmed its authority even over “cardinals, patriarchs, legates of the Apostolic See, [and] bishops” in cases of grave offenses such as the sexual abuse of a minor. Those powers had originally been granted by John Paul II and were extended by Benedict XVI in 2005.
Second, there continues to be debate about whether laicization of an abuser is always the best remedy. Monsignor Stephen Rossetti, for instance, is a psychologist and longtime director of the St. Luke Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland, which treats abuser priests. If the aim is protecting children, Rossetti argues, cutting ties with the abuser may actually make things worse. By eliminating any supervision or means of support, laicization can increase the risk that the cleric will re-offend.
The Vangheluwe case raises the question in especially clear terms. Faced with an elderly bishop who may not fully understand the gravity of his conduct, what’s the responsible thing to do? Is it to send a clear message that abuse will not be tolerated, by expelling him from the clerical ranks? Or is it to impose a life of prayer and penance, with the understanding that he will be housed in a setting where he can be monitored, given the support he needs, and kept on the straight and narrow? Is it, perhaps, possible to do both?
Whenever the Vatican makes its final determination, it will be closely scrutinized as a possible template for resolving similar situations elsewhere.
It could be relevant, for instance, in the case of Canadian Bishop Raymond Lahey, who resigned as bishop of Antigonish in 2009 after Canadian Border Service officials seized his laptop, which allegedly contained child pornography, while Lahey was reentering the country from a trip abroad. Lahey’s criminal trial is scheduled to begin next month, and Vatican officials have said they’re awaiting the outcome before they launch an ecclesiastical process. (Under recent revisions to church law, the possession of child pornography has been defined as a “grave offense” which could trigger laicization.)
The same sequence could play out in Belgium. Prosecutors have said they’re studying new complaints that Vangheluwe and another priest sexually abused two boys at a camp in the 1960s, one of whom reportedly later committed suicide.
* * *
Whenever a pop culture phenomenon erupts with which Catholics have a beef, there’s always tension over the best response. Is it to protest, thereby demonstrating that there’s a price to pay for picking on the church? Or is it to exercise benign neglect, thereby depriving the instigators of the thing they usually want most -- controversy, which typically translates into higher box office receipts or book sales?
That question is percolating again in Italy this week, where a new movie by acclaimed Italian filmmaker Nanni Morreti is stirring debate. (Moretti is not only one of Italy’s most successful directors, but he’s also a strong political leftist and critic of the current Berlusconi government.)
The movie is titled “Habemus Papam,” the Latin phrase used to announce the election of a pope. The plot centers on a newly elected pontiff who’s so overwhelmed by the magnitude of the job that he needs a psychotherapist, played by Moretti himself. So far it’s a box office hit in Italy, pulling in almost the equivalent of $2 million dollars in its opening weekend, and it’s set to compete at the Cannes film festival.
To be sure, not everybody in the Catholic world is up in arms at the suggestion that a new pope might need some hand-holding. After all, Benedict XVI actually compared his election in 2005 to capital punishment, saying that during the conclave he felt the “guillotine” falling upon him. Both the Jesuit journal Civiltà Cattolica, which has a semi-official Vatican status, and Vatican Radio suggested there’s nothing to be offended by, and famed Vatican writer Vittorio Messori actually praised the film in Corriere della Sera for upsetting the usual anticlerical stereotypes of preening cardinals lusting for power.
All that, however, failed to convince Salvatore Izzo, another well known Italian Catholic journalist, who publicly called for a boycott of the film in the pages of L’Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian bishops. In essence, Izzo’s argument boils down to this: Moretti crossed a line by poking fun not just at the church or its leaders as a class, but the pope himself.
“We shouldn’t touch the pope -- the rock on which Jesus founded his Church,” Izzo wrote.
A certain type of Catholic, of course, reacts to satire about the pope the way some Americans react to insults about their mother … i.e., not well. In this case, Izzo insisted that Catholics should not financially support a movie that insults their religion, hence the call for a boycott.
The odds of that happening don’t seem especially good, given that many other prominent Catholic voices in Italy aren’t on board.
Vatican writer Andrea Tornielli, for instance, wrote the following by way of reply to Izzo: “We live in times in which putting a film on the Index contributes to its success and creates curiosity. The effect of certain campaigns, in sum, is exactly the opposite of what the boycotters anticipate. Personally, I think it’s better to use the weapon of a boycott only in those cases of works which are truly ‘blasphemous’ -- of which, alas, there’s no shortage.”
At the moment there’s no release date for “Habemus Papam” in the United States, but if and when it eventually makes its way to the American market, it will be interesting to see how Catholics here react -- including whether we feel compelled to repeat the debate that’s already occurred in Italy.
* * *
As a journalist, I’m constantly struck by the way intelligent observers of church affairs can look at the same set of facts and draw diametrically opposing conclusions. Two Catholic storylines in recent days illustrate the point.
One comes out of Ireland, where the church is preparing for yet another highly critical government report on its handling of the sexual abuse crisis. This time the focus is on the diocese of Cloyne, in rural southern Ireland, which until his resignation last year was led by Bishop John Magee -- an erstwhile private secretary to Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. (Devotees of Vatican intrigue may recall that Magee was initially said to have discovered the body of John Paul I, though that story fell apart when it emerged that it was actually a nun who had brought the pope’s morning coffee who found him dead.)
Recently the Irish High Court approved publication of the Cloyne report, which now seems likely to appear in early May, with the exception of one chapter concerning a priest currently facing a criminal trial.
On the one hand, many will see the Cloyne report as another devastating blow for the church, especially because it focuses not on cases from decades ago, but on complaints filed between 1996 and 2009. The report shows that although the Irish bishops supposedly adopted tough new policies in 1996, including a pledge to report alleged abuse to the police, Magee didn’t follow those policies as recently as 2008. Like the Philadelphia Grand Jury report in the United States, therefore, the Cloyne report in Ireland seems to seriously undercut claims that the problem is in the past.
Others, however, will insist that the Cloyne report proves that the church really has turned a corner. That’s because the first investigation of Cloyne was carried out by a church oversight panel, the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church, led by a widely respected Presbyterian child protection expert named Ian Elliot. The board’s 2008 conclusions were highly critical of Magee, which is what triggered the government to launch its own review. Those inclined to give the church the benefit of the doubt will therefore say that however devastating the Cloyne report may be, it’s actually a result of the church’s own commitment to accountability.
So, which is it? Does the Cloyne report show a church that can’t be trusted to honor its own promises, or a church that’s finally on the road to recovery? The frustratingly complex reality is that each view probably captures some truth, and each, if pressed too far, becomes an exercise in spin.
The second case in point comes from the United States, involving the relationship between bishops and theologians. Everyone knows those ties are strained these days (among some bishops and some theologians more than others, of course), but the question is who’s responsible for it.
The story centers on Sr. Elizabeth Johnson of Fordham University, one of America’s most acclaimed Catholic theologians, whose 2007 book Quest for the Living God was recently criticized by the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. bishops’ conference for undermining “the Gospel and the faith of those who believe in the Gospel,” especially in its treatment of the Trinity.
Critics of how the bishops have handled the situation, including the Catholic Theological Society of America, have complained not only that the bishops misread the book, but that Johnson was not consulted before the Committee on Doctrine issued its statement. They note that such a procedure is at odds with the bishops’ own 1989 policy on resolving disputes with theologians, which states that “informal conversation” should occur before other steps are taken. (For the record, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., chair of the Committee on Doctrine, sent a letter to bishops on April 18 which asserts that the 1989 policy applies to relationships between individual bishops and theologians, not the committee.)
Observers sympathetic to the bishops tend to start the clock rolling earlier on when failures in communication occur. Theologians these days typically don’t request an imprimatur prior to publication, they say, which is the time-honored mechanism in the church for testing the waters to find out if there’s going to be a problem. Of course, a theologian can always publish anyway if the imprimatur is denied, but following the process at least kick-starts dialogue. It’s disingenuous, such observers say, for theologians to avoid any conversation with the bishops before they publish, then complain about a lack of dialogue when bishops respond after their book is already on the market and shaping belief in seminaries, theology departments, and at the grassroots.
Once again, both perspectives may be worth considering -- especially given that when there’s a breakdown in communication, it’s rare that one party is entirely to blame.
* * *
More often than not, people like to see their own convictions as a middle position between two extremes. We all feel better, I suppose, thinking of ourselves as rational moderates, standing against ideologues on either side.
When it comes to interpretations of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), some progressive Catholics are tempted to see Pope Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of reform,” which stresses continuity with the pre-Vatican II church, as the opposite end of the spectrum from more liberal views. That’s not, however, how most people in the Vatican size things up, where the “hermeneutic of reform” is instead understood as a balanced position between thinking that church history began with Vatican II, and thinking that the council was just plain wrong.
For that taxonomy to work, there have to be credible exponents of the “just plain wrong” position. That’s where Italian historian Roberto de Mattei and Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, a canon of St. Peter’s Basilica, enter the picture.
Both have published provocative books about Vatican II. Last year, de Mattei offered Il Concilio Vaticano II: Una storia mai scritta (“The Second Vatican Council: A Story Never Told”), styling Vatican II as a rupture with tradition comparable to the French Revolution, and faulting every pope since Pius X for allowing it to happen. Gherardini produced Concilio Vaticano II: Il discorso mancato (“The Second Vatican Council: The Missing Discussion”), in which he said some council fathers believed “the church was to be a kind of research laboratory rather than a dispenser of truths from on high.”
Both books were recently reviewed in L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, and in both cases the verdict was fairly negative. The commentary on de Mattei came from Italian Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, author of a study of the council openly critical of the more liberal “Bologna school” associated with Italian scholars Giuseppe Alberigo and Alberto Melloni. Marchetto wrote that de Mattei’s work is “ideological” and suffers from “extremist tendencies.” Likewise, Inos Biffi, a medieval expert and a frequent writer for L’Osservatore, charged that Gherardini doesn’t so much “discuss” Vatican II as “denigrate” it.
The dividing line is this: If the post-Vatican II period brought some confusion and excess, is that the fault of the council itself? Benedict XVI, and figures in sync with his views such as Marchetto and Biffi, say no; traditionalist critics such as de Mattei and Gherardini say yes.
All this illustrates a core insight about the Catholic Church: Deciding who the moderates are depends on the range of views one takes into consideration. When you see the whole picture, it’s often tougher to conclude that the Vatican, or the pope, represents an extreme.
* * *
On Saturday, I’ll be on my way to Rome to cover the May 1 beatification of Pope John Paul II, which will certainly be the Vatican’s biggest public happening of 2010. Beginning on Monday, April 25, I’ll be posting a daily Q&A about the beatification on the “NCR Today” blog, featuring answers to questions such as:
- How does the sainthood process work, and how much does it cost?
- Should popes be beatified and canonized at all?
- What’s the rush in the case of John Paul II?
- Does this amount to a ratification of John Paul’s papacy -- including his record on the sexual abuse crisis?
In the meantime, here’s a piece I wrote for the most recent issue of Newsweek on the beatification.
* * *
Finally, it’s an oft-noted irony that while the Vatican has some serious structural problems when it comes to communications, Benedict XVI himself can be a fairly adept communicator. His chops will be on display again tomorrow, as he goes on Italian TV to respond to viewer questions about his book Jesus of Nazareth. (If this were anyone else, one might be tempted to see it as a marketing exercise designed to boost book sales.)
To be clear, this isn’t “Meet the Press.” A few questions have been selected in advance from around 2,000 submitted by viewers of the religious affairs program “In His Image,” which is broadcast on RAI, the Italian state network. The pope has pre-recorded his replies, which will be aired on Good Friday.
Although Benedict has participated in Q&A sessions before, in meetings with clergy, youth, and reporters on papal trips, this is the first time he or any other pope has gone on television to answer questions from viewers. (John Paul II once called into an Italian talk show, but the host was so flustered he didn’t manage to pop a question.) Even though it’s an orchestrated exchange, it’s nonetheless another chapter in the Vatican’s slow, and sometimes grudging, effort to open up.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. He can be reached at jallen@ncronline.org.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time John Allen's column, "All Things Catholic," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow the directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "All Things Catholic" to your list.
Ethics must be based on
Ethics must be based on Accountability to God! What ever happened to the Catholic Church and the Vatican being examples of piety, love, and morality? When was the last time that we saw the Vatican exhibit these characteristics? I would love to see a Dante arise in our generation. I wonder what "Circle of Hell" he'd put Pedo-Priests in and their superiors in? Would they even merit Purgatory or would they be immediately thrown into Hell? Whether the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church realizes it or not, today they are shaping morality for not only our generation, but each generation to follow. What a legacy for our children and grandchildren! Dare I say it? They might be better off finding their examples of piety, love and morality OUTSIDE of the Holy Roman Catholic Church!
If you read The Inferno, you
If you read The Inferno, you will see Dante put a pedophile in hell. What he would do for the bishops who cover up their crimes is a better question. Dante wasn't shy about putting popes in the fire.
Fraud is the 8th circle, but
Fraud is the 8th circle, but treason is the 9th. Cover ups are fraud, so the unrepentant bishop would be in the 8th circle.
PAPAL STRATEGY & CHILD ABUSE
PAPAL STRATEGY & CHILD ABUSE I: Thank you. In 2000, your courageous term for the style of Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) and Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was unqualifiedly "totalitarian". You then realized you would not get access to Vatican sources by being so direct and honest, so you toned down your views. The Vatican, as you well know, has a consistent overall strategy that clearly explains its willingness to protect indefinitely child rapist and abusive priests and bishops at a cost of billions of dollars of legal expense, to accept the escalating exodus worldwide of tens of millions of Catholics and to oppress increasingly exemplary Catholic theologians and prophets like Elizabeth Johnson and Roy Bourgeois. I fully describe this papal strategy honestly and in detail in my comment further below entitled PAPAL STRATEGY & CHILD ABUSE II. Please read it carefully. If my description is inaccurate or incomplete, please regain the courage you showed in 2000 and correct and complete my description. Your readers deserve more than Vatican spin thinly disguised as your views.
Aye, aye! You have lost your
Aye, aye! You have lost your courage and perspicacity, John Allen! You don't need your cozy Vatican relationships as much as you think -- those bits of trivia are not so interesting as the real perspective you could bring.
I believe it's worth noting
I believe it's worth noting when a diocese deals swiftly and well with allegations of improper behavior by a priest. A former pastor of mine in the Erie (PA) Diocese was accused of improper conduct with a teen male, and Bishop Trautman responded quickly and decisively.
The diocese has a good track record and has been very open about its process. I would hope more such actions would be reported instead of just the egregious offenders.
For more information: http://site.catholicfavors.com/blog/752/pa-priest-charged-with-inappropr...
Suzanne
all of the above, yet more
all of the above, yet more reasons to ask who cares what the Vatican thinks.... why are Bishop's held to such high esteem ??? they are mere mortals like everyone else.... the guy belongs in jail period. !
Talk about cafeteria Catholics- here we read of picking which Council of the Church are valid and which are not. My reading of the documents overwhelming voted upon at Vatican II, clearing showing the present regime is trying to bypass and change what was said...
Ditto... plus, What if each
Ditto...
plus,
What if each priest or bishop abuser were treated by the secular authorities without their titles being involved, eg. Mr. Roger Vangheluwe -- would that bring clearer direction as to how to "handle" these individuals? I'm not sure I understand the depth of respect and concern given to perpetrators once guilt has been either admitted or proven... it certainly doesn't occur in cases with non-religious personnel.
Quite right about bypassing.
Quite right about bypassing. It is happening on many fronts, not "just" pedophilia and other sexual abuse. For example, the new English "translation" of the liturgy which is to be inflicted upon us next Advent is another clear abuse of power. It violates at least three documents of Vatican II (The Church; The Liturgy; Ecumenism) as well as previous papal policy regarding translation from the time of Pius XII.
Are we to consider as valid and licit an order to adopt a liturgical translation made in violation of an ecumenical council? Put aside for now the question of its questionable English. It is certainly illegal, and probably sinful (for those with knowledge of the process) to comply.
Sadly, we are living in an age of a corrupt Church, not unlike the Renaissance (except we're lacking the Michelangelos et al.) We desperately need both structural and procedural change -- and that does not mean more centralization in Rome, but the installation of real checks & balances at all levels.
When we consistently assume
When we consistently assume that Jesus structured the Church as it is today, with those in the role of leadership assuming absolute power and authority as God given and therefore the role of the "laity" is that of obedience, then we get into real problems. The clergy are a people set apart and the voice of God, as I learned in our Novitiate many years ago - Obedience to those in authority is obedience to God and that was established as the Cardinal Virtue. When we forget that the Baptized are the Living Body and Blood of Christ in the world, called to mission, we tend to get caught up in several heresies and forget the mission and that the Spirit works through the ongoing Creation. We also forget that Creation is fundamentally diverse (the trinitarian model) and changing - opening to becoming more fully human as we allow the Spirit to lead us through the wilderness to the promised land. The Vatican is not the promised land and the bishops are not God, but they as the rest of the Community of the Faithful are called to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus the Christ - a Gospel of Life which is dynamic and calls us to the mission of proclaiming to the world that God guides us on our common journey and that we are all bound together by Gods absolute love for all of Creation.
Thanks Charles, I needed to
Thanks Charles, I needed to be reminded of that. How inclusive is God's love,
There is incontrovertible
There is incontrovertible evidence that the romantic notion of sending off child rapist clerics off to some monastery for a life of prayer and penance is untenable. This has been suggested for decades, done for decades, and failed for decades. One has to ask why it continues as a first line of defense in the argument regarding what to do with them. This recourse has proven over and over again to be impossible because:
A) There are not enough monasteries or religious houses in the world to house them all, especially in rural places where they have historically been sent and have caused untold damage, even as they were supposedly being "monitored" by superiors since well before Vatican II.
B) There are not enough or even willing superiors who want to be their supervisors. They have tried and know IT DOES NOT WORK. It sickens them.
C) You can't control sex fiends who
1) will never change (and yes, experts and bishops have known they were not curable for decades, contrary to spin)
2) have all the time (and our monetary support) needed to think about how to get sex with undocumented sex trade minors behind whatever local bars they can find when they sneak out on weekends (ergo we are guilty as well if they succeed simply because we can't bear to address this suitably)
3) still have the appearance of being members of the clergy and so the respect of unsuspecting youths
4) are typically housed with other priest offenders (as has always been the case), especially in rural areas filled with naive, cleric-respecting church populations
1. who go on to commit group sex abuse because their narcissistic psychopathy magnifies each others' tendencies into a group psychopathy. In my area of the country alone, there were multiple pairs of abusers going after children.
2. who are more intelligent than you can possibly guess, which has made them such successful abusers for so long
3. who are great at convincing people, especially religious superiors and confreres of their innocence, precisely because of their holy-seeming mask personalities
5) who remain in a clerical subculture that
a) identifies with them at heart because of both their collars and seeming sexual orientations
b) allows a spirit of forgiveness to obscure the need for just restraints
Keeping cleric rapists in the ranks of the clergy DOES NOT PROTECT CHILDREN.
Let me repeat, IT DOES NOT PROTECT CHILDREN. Ask any professional organization who cares for the chronically mentally ill in community. There are NO fail safes available. There is not enough supervision possible unless there are LOCKED doors.
If the Church wants to protect society from these monsters, it should pay into a permanently restricted endowment under the control of an independent organization which would then have these rapists declared insane by the courts and committed to their permanent, read, permanent care, where they will be behind locked doors.
This is a hard say, as George Weigel would say, but I would also say, from now on, if any abusive priest sent off to one of these imaginary safe havens rapes even one more child, then Stephen Rossetti and his generation of ecclesial psychologists should also suffer the same fate.
Oh, and might we have the statistics right now about how many of these rapists already recommended for coddling by Monsignor Rossetti himself over his 17 years as the head of the St. Luke Institute have already raped again?
As he mentioned in a public lecture once, ... "there is always a risk."
ANY risk is unacceptable, Monsignor Rossetti.
As far as Rossetti's fear regarding laicizing them and allowing them to go free in the population to offend again--the general population knows how to deal with these problems and is currently being prevented from doing so by the Church's political arm....(and I write this as a former professional political lobbyist). Why?
If the Church feels guilty about letting them loose, then why is every Catholic Conference in each of the 50 states and abroad lobbying hard against the extension of and retroactive changes in statues of limitations, which would finally resolve the problem of these child rapist clerics going free?
THESE CHANGES IN STATUES WOULD HAVE ALL TAKEN PLACE BY NOW EXCEPT FOR THE BACKDOOR LOBBYING EFFORTS OF CATHOLIC CHURCH LOBBYISTS THREATENING LEGISLATORS THAT THEY WOULD CRUCIFY THEM IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS. I know this to be a fact.
The Catholic lobby is still strong enough to make this kind of blackmail possible. This hegemony of Catholic Conferences has to end before children can be protected from clerical abusers who are still free and doing damage because they are beyond the reach of prosecution. Parishioners in the pews need to stop taking their leafleting seriously and let their legislators know that these changes are crucial.
More importantly, the protection of the priesthood has to stop being equated with the preservation of the clerical state of child rapist priests, as Archbishop Dolan has publicly done and advocated as late as last month.
The rape of a child so contradicts the priestly anointing that it should make its holder forever banned from the use of its powers. The sacramental seal and character may be permanent as with Baptism, but as one can renounce one's Baptism so can a child rapist de facto renounce his priesthood.
Wake up, church. We are being snowed by the likes of ideologues, pundits, journalists, Catholic-influenced politicians and church functionaries, lobbyists and psychologists. And more under-monitored, not-prosecuted priest rapists remain free everyday to rape our children yet again.
The responsibility remains with us, the laity.
A bit off your rocker, aren't
A bit off your rocker, aren't you? The hysteria that is so clear in your comments is disturbing. A few facts that need to be emphasized: first, sexually abusive individuals are infrequently "insane," and by law must be judged to be incompetent to participate in a defense, etc. All of the sexual paraphilias (e.g., pedophilia) are clinical classifications and not necessarily legal ones. Likewise, not all abusers are "more intelligent than you could possibly guess." Sexual offenders span the IQ spectrum just like any other criminal group. Professionals in the field would also take issue with your flat-out assertion that offenders are "incurable." That position is not supported by the research, and the poorest outcomes are with true pedophiles (many individuals who have abused children - particularly Catholic priests - are not true pedophiles)and not quite the case with other types of sex offenders. My point being is that you are spewing things that have little if any understanding of the true facts and so you add nothing of value to the discussion. What you really present is extreme anger which makes you a little disorganized in your thinking when you concentrate on the subject. I would speculate that you may have some abuse issues of your own that fuel your fire. While I fully agree that the Church has - as an organization - done little to really be effective in this matter, it cannot be left to just the laity to do more. It must be us as a Church - everyone - and so we need to keep applying pressure to the organizational church to open itself to more involvement and scrutiny by the laity along with it's heirarchy.
Your solution seems
Your solution seems meaningless to me... A red herring that buys time with words but no real plan. Perhaps if you delineated a bit more on how you think pressure should be applied...
You speak as though you are a professional in the mental health field, are you? If not, what gives you the authority to say that the above writer is "off his rocker" (yes, yes, not a mental health term) and has "extreme anger" about this subject. Any decent parent is angry about this too. Do you have children? If so and, God forbid, they were molested, do you think you would be so "detached"? I doubt it, but you would be very inhuman if you were.If you don't have children, please knock it off.
Enlighten us with sources to read that show professionals in the field believe that usually child molesters can be cured or that they are not incurable.
"...the Church has - as an organization - done little to be really effective in this matter..." How true, the hierarchy has fought tooth and nail to be ineffective. And isn't mental reservation convenient. They say they have proceedures in place, too bad they do not have to follow them.
As far as I am concerned the pope can build a monestary on Devil's Island and turn them loose.
Never said child molesters
Never said child molesters can be cured. You missed the points I was making. Understandable, as we all read these blogs at high speed many times.
AMEN
AMEN
THESE CHANGES IN STATUES
THESE CHANGES IN STATUES WOULD HAVE ALL TAKEN PLACE BY NOW EXCEPT FOR THE BACKDOOR LOBBYING EFFORTS OF CATHOLIC CHURCH LOBBYISTS THREATENING LEGISLATORS THAT THEY WOULD CRUCIFY THEM IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS. I know this to be a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this very reason, local law enforcement personnel must start to think in terms of diocesan bishops doing time in the Big House. Until the sanctimonious, psalm-singing divas shipping these priests out of their dioceses and placing their admitted wrong-doings and testimony under the seal of the confessional begins to stop, or they realize there is a good chance they'll be hearing the jail doors clanging behind them, there will be NO change by the lobbying bishops.
"A period of monitoring and
"A period of monitoring and evaluation has to unfold before a final decision can be reached, away from the pressure created by intense media attention. Bottom line: We may be talking months, not days, before a final decision comes."
If Belgian Bishop Roger Vangheluwe had said he favors ordaining women as priests, he would be excommunicated instantly, but because he sexually abuses children the Vatican takes a wait and see approach. If the guys in the sixty foot silk robes who run the Vatican believe that a sociopath-narcissist-pedophile will suddenly snap out of it, the Catholic Church is in even bigger trouble than we thought. The spirit of Bernard Law is alive and well.
The guys in the 60 foot silk
The guys in the 60 foot silk robes are sociopathic narcissists themselves and can be counted on to support
a brother who is in trouble. The RC bishops, etc, truly are criminal and they are shameless about it anymore.
There is a bishop in Arizona
There is a bishop in Arizona serving in the state penitentiary who thought he was beyond the arm of the law. What's even more pathetic, he was taught this from being a young man in seminary, as most seminarians still are. Especially the super trad young fogies flocking to serve under B16's banner.
The bishops aren't going to get it through their heads they're acting like common criminals until they start serving time and have exchanged the purple cassock and jeweled party hat for a pair of orange-colored fatigues and a baseball cap. Only when the local district attorney begins to do his/her job, ceases to be pressured and mesmerized by the Chancery Office, and the jail door starts to bang behind the bishop following his trial, then, and only then, will the first signs of true reform start sweeping through the Church.
Not the first time this has
Not the first time this has happened. Way back, in 1954, Bishop Daniel Ivancho, Apostolic Exarch of Pittisburgh, was forced to resign,when it was learned that he had been secretly married. Ironically enough,one of his responibilities was enforcing celibacy on Byzantine Catholic clergy, in accordance with the papal decrees. "Ea Semper" and "Cum Data Fuerit". Ivancho spent the rest of his lfe managing a hotel in Florida. Ivancho, was succeeded by Bishop Nicholas Elko, a good PR man,but who ultimately proved to be a disaster. He was convicted at an ecclesiastical trial in Rome,but Paul VI voided the trial, and Elko was ultimately sent to Cinncinati as a Latin rite suxiliary. Elko,I suspect,had some psychological problems. Rome has not always administered its Eastern rite "fiefdoms" very well. The current Byzantine Archeparchy has been vacant for over 10 months. It is technically an autonomous ritual church "sui juris". Over the past decades, the archbishops in Pittsburgh have actually been pretty solid pastors.
Interesting. This history
Interesting. This history had not come to my attention before. Appropriate, I suppose, that Bishop Elko ended up as a Latin rite auxiliary, since he had the reputation in some quarters of being a Latinizer of the Byzantine tradition. But overall, another sad story.
John, could you clarify the
John, could you clarify the Canon Law status re laicisation of a bishop.
As I understand it the office of bishop is the highest since it involves
the fullness of the priesthood. The Pope himself derives his authority from
the fact that he is the Bishop of Rome. I am sure that any bishop being human
can go seriously astray. History is also replete with Popes who went astray.
But what does it mean? You can tell a bishop he is out of line. I am not at all sure you can actually remove him from his office.
Any chance you could quote the sections relating to this.
Enjoy, Happy Easter and Safe Travelling.
TomC.
Sr. Elizabeth Johnson of
Sr. Elizabeth Johnson of Fordham University, one of America’s most acclaimed Catholic theologians, whose 2007 book Quest for the Living God was recently criticized by the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. bishops’ conference for undermining “the Gospel and the faith of those who believe in the Gospel,” especially in its treatment of the Trinity.
Johnson's book opens one to actually meditating on and becoming personally involved with God instead of thinking about doctrine. I never understand why the bishops are so afraid that the laity ("the flock"...I guess they think we're dirty & unwashed & smelly & let ourselves be herded willy-nilly) will be scandalized and their faith disrupted...the only scandal currently extant in the church is the bishops themselves...they do NOT understand that there is a difference between a theologian and a catechist...they do NOT understand that child sexual abuse occurs everywhere & is repugnant, but that covering up such abuse is totally scandalous...
The bishops need to dig their collective noses out of the trash heap of the Roman Curia and walk with the people...the people are very close to God...they are not scandalized by Jesus, his passion, his death, his resurrection...the laity are educated, the laity have real spiritual lives that don't dwell on doctrine, the laity are truly "People of God"...so why do the bishops so easily dismiss "the people"??? Surely this wave of the dismissal & distrust of the people is the REAL scandal.
I never understand why the
I never understand why the bishops are so afraid that the laity ("the flock"...I guess they think we're dirty & unwashed & smelly & let ourselves be herded willy-nilly)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bishops are always afraid the smart, questioning, and skeptical will see through their veils of deceit and snake oil and perhaps expose their hocus pocus to closer examination. Just as Dorothy pulled aside the Wizard's veil, we would see a bunch of anal retentive old men caught with their purple pants down and their noise-makers, son et lumiere shows exposed for all the world to see. They and their old paymaster, the Bavarian bureaucrat, live in morbid fear they'll finally be discovered and the meal tickets start to disappear as well.
A year ago, Bishop
A year ago, Bishop Vangheluwe's abusing of his nephew for years was publicly announced and widely reported. The Vatican is now apparently mulling over what to do. Evidently, it was not the bishop's abusing that caused Vatican concern but that he talked imprudently about it in his recent interviews. This offers an answer to the question of what the Vatican cares about when the issue is child sexual abuse - the acts or bad publicity reflecting on the Church's image.
As far as laicization freeing an unmonitored abuser to do more, two reports by USAToday have indicated that the alternative of monitoring of abusers by Church authorities may offer little better in terms of public safety, which presumably should be of some interest.
Dioceses oust abusers they had pledged to monitor
Abusive priests live unmonitored
While Catholics leave in
While Catholics leave in droves (here and Germany and elsewhere) this column gives the impression that actually the church is functioning quite well except for some small problems that can be taken care of. How pleased Cardinal Rigali, Law must be. Also Archbishop Dolan. What is needed is not a "hermeneutic of reform" but a hermeneutic of decline. The "reform" has failed.
Im sure youll lead the way
Im sure youll lead the way Northcountry!!
I'd rather see a hermeneutic
I'd rather see a hermeneutic of purification starting with the Prince of Darkness himself. Who appers to have clearly taken up residence in the Holy See of Rome and episcopal chanceries around the globe. These demons possessing the cardinals and bishops need to be driven out by court action, by the laity demanding their voice in the selection of all Church office holders, new and strict accounting standards for all organizations.
The Church needs to turned upside down and radically prund of medieval accretions which Vatican II should have excised, but never did. Breaking up over-sized, ungovernable dioceses and provinces into manageable local units or clusters of parishes with pastors raised to the fullness of holy orders. Charitable and religious institutions governed by local synods and national councils with lay men and women in attendance and voting. Fixed terms of office for popes, bishops, and pastors.
Gone should be the ridiculous the raimant suggesting earthy and grossly inflated spiritual authority; a false sacerdotalism and pontificalism invented in the 10th century and enlarged upon down through the centuries to the time of the Reformation. Gone would be the outdated honors, titles, modes of address, the absurd protocol of kissings and bowings to drama queens. All with egos as big as all outdoors.
Gone would be the palaces, chauffers, the cappa magnas, and jewel encrusted party clothes and theatrical fashions now making a big comeback in certain quarters of the Church.
POPE'S STRATEGY&CHILD
POPE'S STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-2. This is further to my above comment. Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is clearly very intelligent and presumably well intentioned, as we may assume was his predecessor, Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II). Because of the secrecy policy still in place after 1,500 years of papal monarchy, it is often difficult to discern with great certainty why popes act the way they do. Mostly, recent popes have acted publicy only through carefully orchestrated TV events and controlled publications like encyclicals and press communications and interviews via carefully selected captive media and favored journalists. Nevertheless, recent investigations by determined journalists and extensive court-mandated revelations in child abuse litigation have now provided a better basis for understanding of the Vatican's actions and overall strategy. Inferring carefully and honestly from these disclosures enables us finally to understand and explain the Vatican's long term strategy in a coherent form. Honest and concerned Catholics are now asking, sometimes in desperation, is there any consistent overall explanation for the Vatican's (1)apparent indifference to the escalating worldwide exodus from the Church of tens of millions of the faithful, (2) decades old, very expensive and morally indefensible protection of child abusing priests and bishops, (3) increasing and ruthless oppression of dedicated theologians and advocates, (4) refusal to share power with bishops, either individually, at national conferences or at an overdue ecumenical council, as demanded so boldly and emphatically by over 2,000 bishops at Vatican II, and (5) unwillingness to reassess its divisive and destructive sexual policies, among other policies and doctrines needing reassessment in current times. Yes, there is an overall explanation. It may upset some sincere Catholics who are exceedingly loyal and spiritually comfortable in the overall glorified narrative they learned as children. But more and more Catholics now recognize the hierarchy is behaving in ways completely inconsistent with this earlier narrative. So let us look honestly now at the current papal strategy. This strategy is discussed in detail below in my third comment entitled. "Pope's Strategy & Child Abuse-3".
Jerry, Thank you again for
Jerry,
Thank you again for your crystal clear analysis and pin-point accuracy.
To deal with the first issue,
To deal with the first issue, clerical sexual abuse:
Isn't it time the heirarchy stopped ignoring the herd of elephants in the living room and accepted the fact that sexual abuse by clergy at all levels,
including bishops, cardinals and popes, is as old as the hills. The church has been plagued by this heinious crime from its first years. There have been several councils over the centuries during which the issue of clerical sexual abuse has been raised and, sad to say, the issue will never go away so long as humans, of both genders, walk the face of this earth and are part of the governance of the church. So while we must live with the fact that, despite the most stringest screening, some will fall through the cracks and become sexual abusers. What we can and we must live without is the manner in which known sexual abusers are dealt with by church leaders. It was not the few abusers (about the same percentage as the general population which is, of course, nothing to crow about) who cause the scandal, it was the manner in which church leaders deal with the abusers which allowed the abusers to
continue abusing, sometimes for decades. And this has been going on for centuries, just read Saint Peter Danian's Book of Gammora written centuries ago. After two thousand years the heirarchy still does not appear to "get it". Isn't it about time to turn the whole handling of the problem over to those whose primary interest is the protedtion of persons and not the avoidance of scandal and protection of patrimony. Can anyone picture so many persons of whatever ages being sexualy abused for so long a time if married people, most especially mothers, had been made privy to what was going on and how it was being "handled" by our leaders.
Needless to say, not all of our church leaders were abuse enablers, some had the courage to do what was right and for these we are grateful.
Thank God for Pope Benedict
Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI! He has offered for the youth today the most balanced understanding of the Second Vatican Council, helping us achieve true reform while not falling into the ideological bunkers of radical traditionalists and nutty leftists, such as those represented by most of the comments here. Many years, papa!
@MP: Amen. Most of the
@MP: Amen. Most of the commentators here seem to be impatient for the next scandal to come out, so that they can feel justified in their dissent. There have always been a small minority of renegade and corrupt priests and bishops in the Church, but the Church has continued the mission of its Founder in spite of them.
The numbers of pedophile
The numbers of pedophile enabling bishops are neither small nor a minority. Here are ones just here in the US:
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-3.
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-3. This continues my two comments on Papal Strategy set forth above. In 1959, John XXIII shocked the papal Curia, the pope's large traditional Roman beauracracy, by calling for Vatican II. In the first session of the Council, Cardinal Frings shocked the Curia further by rejecting, to the loud applause of 2,000+ bishops, the Curia's drafts of Council documents that would have preserved the Curia's power virtually unchanged. John XXIII backed Frings, but then died. A longtime Curia member, Giovanni Montini (Paul VI), was then elected after several ballots and secret negotiations. Presumably, he had obtained the necessary support of the large block of Curial and Italian Cardinals after making clear his intentions with respect to the revolutionary thrust of Frings' approach exhibited at the first session of Vatican II. Montini, in the remaining three sessions of Vatican II, apparently with the Curia's concurrrence, confirmed emphatically to the Council bishops three things--"hands off" celibacy, contraception and Curial reform. Many bishops wanted to address each of these openly at the Council. Montini thereafter undercut the 2,000+ bishops' clear attempt to restore the Apostolic collegial exercise of bishops' power jointly with (and not subordinate to) the pope. He also unilaterally declared the continuation of the complete prohibition on contraception and the continuance of mandatory celibacy. This coincided approximately with his declaration of a token reform of the Curia and establishment of periodic synods of bishops with only advisory authority. The full consequences of Montini's evident support of the Curial positions have become much clearer under his successors, Wojtyla and Ratzinger, and form the foundation of the Vatican's current strategy. The machinations surrounding Montini's 1968 contraception decision and its significant relationship to his preserving a claim to infallible power is described in my March 23 NCR article entitled, "The new birth control commission papers reveal the Vatican's hand". The Curia's approach, however well intentioned, was derived from over 1,500 years of papal imperial practice that continued even after the pope lost his political kingdom in central Italy in 1870. Ironically, the pope ended up even more powerful because he was by the end of World War I no longer at risk of military invasion by other European monarchs. And equally significant, the pope obtained exclusive power to appoint bishops, a power that from the time of Constantine in the fourth century had mostly been controlled by emperors and kings. Indeed, as late as the early twentieth century, the Austrian emperor was able to veto a candidate for pope. By the time Wojtyla and Ratzinger assumed papal power, the road ahead to develop a global papal monarchical strategy, enhanced by modern communications and free of any outside control, was open. This is explained further below in my next comment, "Papal Strategy&Child Abuse-4".
" -- what’s the responsible
" -- what’s the responsible thing to do? Is it to send a clear message that abuse will not be tolerated, by expelling him from the clerical ranks? Or is it to impose a life of prayer and penance, with the understanding that he will be housed in a setting where he can be monitored, given the support he needs, and kept on the straight and narrow? Is it, perhaps, possible to do both?"
Civil incarceration, anyone? All in favor say "aye."
Aye
Aye
When a theology of the
When a theology of the priesthood/clericalism becomes so convoluted that leaders are no longer willing or able to seriously address the practical matters of clergy predation and put a stop to it, then it would seem that the theology itself is also a serious problem — the source of the endless predation problem that has existed for hundreds of years. Absolute power and privilege has a corrupting influence wherever it is found.
.
The Vatican has known for at least a year (that they admit) that this man, a man elevated to bishop by JP2 in the 1980s, is a predator, and an enabler of other predators as bishop. They whisked him out of Belgium for "treatment" since the statute is still running for his crimes as a prelate accomplice, even though the statute has run out on his crimes with his nephews. It wasn't speculation or allegation, the man admitted what he had done. It was not until Rome was very publicly embarrassed by this man's sociopathic and narcissistic smugness in a TV interview that suddenly 'what to do with him' became more "urgent". The demonstrated psychological profile doesn't just spring out of nowhere — it develops early in life and escalates — and it's frankly not credible to claim that 'no one knew' he was psychologically and morally "unstable" until now. It's a Vatican pattern of denial demonstrated also in other cases where documents are now available in the public domain.
.
Belgium authorities and the public WILL 'know what to do with him' if Rome will cease running interference — the whole matter has nothing to do with 'laicizing clergy' predators being a "threat" to public safety... it's Vatican concern of a threat to their theology of clericalism that is at stake here. In our modern electronic media age there is no longer anywhere for them to hide what now appears to be an endemic predation problem and tolerance of it, reaching into the highest places within the hierarchy, for the sole purpose of protecting their institution and their privileged place in it. The Vatican spin, and that of their apologists, just doesn't work anymore.
.
You and your fellow clergymen
You and your fellow clergymen don't get it, Father Allen. There is not a separate civil law for the general population from which Catholic clergy can be excused from. For all your analyzing of what is the best way to handle this issue, it still sounds like the clergy's "public image" is ahead of the damage done to the victims. This bishop wouldn't be the first elderly person accused of molestation whose current judgment would be questionable, so why not let this bishop face the justice system that the rest of us would have to face? You and your fellow priests do not know how your credibility and respect have long since vanished in our lives as members of the Catholic Church, and one of the biggest avenues of healing you have missed is that you and so many of the Catholic priests live in your own vacuum where you won't even sit down with us laity and hear what we have to say, what hurts. That sends a message of your not caring what we think or feel. We are well aware of how our clergy are falling short in caring for the people. If the clergy could finally wake up and become pastoral figures who really care about their people, you would see a huge turn around, I suspect. I think of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and saying how He longed to bring the people under his loving care like a mother gathering her chicks and the people at that time just wouldn't respond. Now,in our own times, I think Jesus would say the same thing of these priests, monsignors, bishops and cardinals and pope who just don't get what Jesus called them to do in their vocations. You are not signs of Christ among us by and large, although there is the "remnant" of very good pastoral clergy who are genuinely living out their vocations, thanks be to God! Father Allen, I know you would be fired if you ever spoke your heart, but remember it gets pretty uncomfortable sitting on top of a fence straddling for a long time. If they treated the Master this way, it should not come as a surprise that in being Christ-like we too will suffer. The suffering the molestors and hierarchy are experiencing is not the suffering of Christ, but rather the pain of facing the music after thinking they could get away with it.
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-4.
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-4. This continues my three comments above on Papal Strategy. Putting aside for the moment the current hierarchy, Vatican II occurred after 400 years of a relatively inflexible Church hierarchy trying to survive, among other things, after the demise of other European monarchies and the spread of democratic governments subject to the rule of law. Not surprisingly, when this ecclesiastical dam broke beginning in the late 1960's, it caused many changes, not all of them foreseen or beneficial. Pius XII surprisingly on Christmas 1944 had praised democracy, but had not adopted this approach for the Church. Traditionalists in the Curia and many others in the hierarchy by the late 1970's continued to be dismayed and fearful of the many changes after Vatican II. Many hierarchs appear to have been concerned also about the threats these changes presented to their positions of power and privlege. Some certainly believed the changes were detrimental to the salvation of many of the faithful. In this situation, the Curia Cardinals, and other Cardinals similarly concerned, secretly elected Wojtyla pope in 1978. The pope promptly and ruthlessly began his efforts to silence his most outspoken opponent, Hans Kung, in 1979. Wojtyla had already informed a small group of Polish theologians that Hans Kung was the principal obstacle in the way of Wojtyla's objective of restoring the Church fully to its pre-Vatican II style and structure. Kung had dared to question the increasingly excessive concentration of power in the papacy, including the claim of papal infallibility, and, perhaps more significantly, had exposed in international newspapers the relatively inadequate theological education of Wojtyla. To boot, Kung pointed out that Wojtyla likely had as a young man spent as much time training to be a theatrical actor as he had spent studying current theology. Ratzinger fully and publicly supported Wojtyla's attack on Kung, even though Kung had been Ratzinger's friend for over 20 years and a former close academic colleague. Apparently, for this and other similar support, Wojtyla soon rewarded Ratzinger with the control of the most powerful Curial department, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The CDF policed theologians and some egregious child abuse cases, icluding as early as 1986 the notorious and continuing sexual abuses of the head of the wealthy and authoritarian Legionaires, Maciel from Mexico. In my next comment, Papal Strategy 5 below, I will explain how this collaboration of Wojtyla and Ratzinger led to the papal strategy presently operating, including the policy of protecting priests and bishops who criminally sexually abuse defenseless children.
Please help support victims
Please help support victims of sexual abuse by demanding honesty, transparency, and accountability from Church leaders. Please visit our website and create productive discussion about how we, as a society, can prevent future children and vulnerable adults from sexual abuse inside and outside the walls of the Catholic Church.
The Site is founded by a victim of clergy childhood sexual abuse. We provide Victims and Supporter discussions, News Headlines, Live 1-on-1 Chat, Links & Websites for victims and supporters.
www.Victims4Justice.org
Interesting about "Habemus
Interesting about "Habemus Papam." Will it even be distributed in the U.S.?
In that connection, I am wondering why the controversial movie "Agora" (2009) never got distributed in the U.S. Directed by Alejandro Amenabar, it deals with late 4th Century Alexandria and the assassination of the non-Christian philosopher, Hypatia, by a Christian mob (which is factual). It portrays St. Cyril of Alexandria as an arch-villain, and is not particularly flattering to religion in general. "Agora" was a hit in Europe, especially in Spain, but is unheard of in the U.S. Will this be the fate of "Habemus Papam"?
John, excellent review of
John, excellent review of what is currently happening!
why am I always drawn into
why am I always drawn into acually reading Allen's columns? I guess hope is eternal. No matter waht he writes their is always the underlying tone that all is well with the institutional church if only we would listen to the hierarchy. Father knows best, according to Allen. Please get someone more capable of actually seeing the flaws in the system to cover the Vatican. Allen has for years been selling out to the Vatican so he can be invited into the inner sanctum..... however he has given up his objectivity to do so, and is hardly worth reading anymore. How sad.
Please help support victims
Please help support victims of sexual abuse by demanding honesty, transparency, and accountability from Church leaders. Please visit our website and create productive discussion about how we, as a society, can prevent future children and vulnerable adults from sexual abuse inside and outside the walls of the Catholic Church.
The site is founded by a victim of clergy childhood sexual abuse. We provide Victims and Supporter discussions, News Headlines, Live 1-on-1 Chat, Links & Websites for victims and supporters.
www.Victims4Justice.org
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-5
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-5 -This continues my four comments above on Papal Strategy. Both Wojtyla and Ratinger spent their formative years in totalitarian environments. Both were raised with domestic discipline--Wojtyla's father was a soldier and Ratzinger's father was a police man. By the time Wojtyla became pope, he had spent 40 years watching totalitarian rulers manage a large organization tightly with a small ruling elite. The "new spirit" of Vatican II barely reached Polish Catholics. At the time of his death in 2005, no serious theological commentary had yet been written in Polish on Vatican II's decrees. Wojtyla had substantially completed his formal theolgical education before Pius XII's 1943 endorsement of modern biblical studies had been implemented. His personal knowledge of current biblical research was limited, as is evident in some of his works. He was very intelligent, though, and a charismatic and experienced actor who brilliantly exploited modern communications, especially TV spectacles. His Polish experience led him to value tight control of the Polish Catholic faithful as necessary to survive in a totalitarian environment. This experience, and the compatible preservation goals of the Curia, led him to adopt with determination an overall controlling strategy, with Ratzinger as a key collaborator and enforcer, that aimed at restoring the style of the papal monarchy that existed before Vatican II. This strategy necessarily required maximum control of Catholic thought, clerics (both bishops and priests), doctrine and liturgy. Over 2,000 bishops at Vatican II believed and voted otherwise on many of these matters, but Wojtyla, Ratzinger and the Curia thought they knew better, presumably well intentioned in their view. Catholic thought was to be controlled by religious propaganda and media management and by the intimidating repression of theologians, scholars and clerics who even dared to question the imperial papal ideology. Religious propaganda included voluminous saint-making events, extravagant papal trips, public feast day celebrations (e.g., Holy Week and Christmas), large international youth rallies and even major funerals. The media, especially TV, loves these events--they are visually appealing, inexpensive to produce and easy to understand. The Vatican gets to control the information flow and access. It selects "friendly" commentators who reciprocate by favorable coverage that in turn leads to profitable books and future Vatican access. By making more saints than all prior popes combined, Wojtyla (and now Ratzinger) have been able to pick "saints" that have supported their imperial papal ideology and to reward favorites among their current financial supporters. Wojtyla even beatified one of Maciel's relatives. Many docile Catholics give special credence to the "views of a saint", hence the importance of Wojtyla's upcoming and rushed beatification on May 1, notwithstanding his long term and abysmal failures to deal with clerical abusers, including Maciel, and the questions still remaining about his "miraculous" cure of a neurological illness of a pious nun. The reigning pope gets to wave his mystical wand at these carefully staged televised events and to enhance his message thereby. Thought control is further enhanced by brutually suppressing differing voices. This ranges from the attempted suppression of Hans Kung and Charles Curran in the past to the more recent repression of Paul Collins, Roger Haight, Tom Reese, Elizabeth Johnson and Roy Bourgeois. The recent abrupt action by Cardinal Wuerl, likely at the Vatican's direction or at least with its tacit support, is the latest in furtherance of the current papal strategy. It may also be a prelude to similar action against the 300+ German speaking theologians (a clear majority) who recently dared to recommend publicly to the German bishops that the bishops open discussions with them about Church reform. Many of the German theologians have put their teaching positions at risk by doing this, as Hans Kung did thirty years before. At a minimum, Wuerl's action may be intended to intimate other theologians, especially women, presently teaching at US Catholic affiliated universities. The current papal strategy, especially as it applies to the Vatican's numerous actions that have protected child abusing bishops and priests who have gone on to abuse other victims, is discussed below in my comment, Papal Strategy & Child Abuse--6.
Another excellent article.
Another excellent article. The offending bishops, if they are not dismissed from the clerical state, should be sent for life to a very remote monastery where they will have plenty of time for prayer, penance, and scrubbing floors. A simple priest in the same circumstances would already be sleeping under a bridge.
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-6
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-6 --This continues my 5 comments above on Papal Strategy. The papal strategy for controlling clerics has several aspects. Bishops have been controlled since 1979 (virtually all current bishops and voting Cardinals), first, by a selection process that advances only those candidates that have demonstrated over time that they will zealously support the imperial papal ideology. The questionaires utilized by the Vatican to screen episcopal candidates, now publicly available, make this abundantly clear. The conformist lock-step public behavior of bishops confirms this. Bishops are also offered an economic carrot. Bishops generally have considerable power and wealth within their own imperial dioceses. Hence, bishops who buck the Vatican appear to be as rare as black swans. Moreover, the Vatican's notorious protection of bishops from child abuse prosecution also reinforces bishops' loyalty. The protection with a Vatican City sovereign immunity shield, as well as the rewarding with power and prestige, of Bernard Law by Wojtyla for Law's disgraceful oversight over many years of known rapist priests in Boston is one instance. Last year Bishop Mueller of Norway, a German national, admitted under legal pressure, but only after the statute of limitations expired, to criminally sexually abusing an altar boy. This bishop subsequently continued to administer sacraments at a hospital in Germany until the media caught up with him. Today his present whereabouts, access to children and episcopal status remain unclear. Bishop Vangheluwe of Belgian is the abuser du jour, thanks to his recent incredible TV appearance. He publicly confessed a year ago to abusing the first nephew beginning when the boy was just five years old--but now the bishop says his nephew didn't object until he was a teenager! The TV debacle offered Belgian viewers a first hand view of a pedaphile--arrogance, no remorse, no shame and no comprehension of the permanent damage he caused to his nephew. The Vatican made no apparent effort to get this bishop to undergo therapy in Belgium during this past year, but suddenly directed him to leave Belgium for therapy now that the local prosecutor is reviewing new sexual abuse charges that may not be time barred. The bishop and the Vatican had to have been aware of this pending investigation for some time. This is a new low point of the Vatican's protection of bishops--even Bernard Law had never been accused of direct abuse. These two bishops have publicly admitted their crimes--one of them on prime time TV! The recent grant of the papal honor to visit the Czech Republic given to Cardinal Rigali currently at serious legal risk with his former Secretary's criminal prosecution in Philly similarly sends an unmistakeable signal to all bishops--the Vatican will always protect you. All discussion of possible canon law consequences to these bishops is totally irrelevant. One violated Norwegian criminal laws, another violated Belgian criminal laws and Bernard Law appears to have violated Massachusetts criminal laws. These criminal actions should be prosecuted the same way any other citizen's criminal sexual abuse of defenseless children or the facilitation of abuse is treated, as serious domestic crimes. There are at present no free passes for anyone to commit crimes against children, thank God. The statute of limitations is intended to protect the innocent from old charges that are sometimes difficult to defend against--not to protect criminals who have publicly admitted to having committed the crimes. Canon law is only an internal regulation of a religious corporation--it has no more relevance in a criminal prosecution than a violation of any for-profit corporations' internal employee policies or employee handbook would have. The pope can effect changes to canon laws at any time and disregard it as well, as has happened more than a few times. In reality, the evident papal strategy of Wojtyla and Ratzinger, so evident in their failures to take action for many years against the multiple sexual abusers, Cardinal Groer of Vienna and Maciel of Mexico, has been to avoid discussing the abusers publicly until the media moves on, then permit the criminals to retire comfortably. This of course further reinforces all bishops' loyalty to the Vatican as well as their indifference to, if not contempt for, the rule of law. This is continued with a dicussion of the Papal Strategy for priests in my comment below Papal Strategy--7.
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-8
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-8 --This comment continues my 7 comments above concerning the current Papal Strategy. This strategy controls priests both emotionally and economically. Emotionally, priests as celibates are made to depend on other clerics for emotional support. Economically, they are subject to a "stick" rather than a "carrot" as with bishops. Priests are dependent on bishops and sometimes parishioners for continuing financial support. If priests could marry, they would have emotional and possibly even financial support not subject to bishops's control. Evidence suggests that a considerable number of priests at various times have secret outside relationships, some heterosexual and some homosexual. A new book by an Italian journalist documents extensive outside sexual relationships among priests in Rome. The Vatican and bishops apparently develop loyalty among priests by overlooking these relationships and by protecting and defending priests, even when they sexually abuse multiple children. The evidence available to support this is sadly overwhelming, notwithstanding the Vatican's and bishops unrelenting and legally expensive efforts to keep abusive priests' personnel files secret. Despite Vatican public relations claims to the contrary, the likehood of child sexual abuse by priests continuing at a significant pace is great. One obvious solution to mitigate this problem with a declining pool of priest candidates is to expand the pool to permit bishops to select the best of many candidates. As part of the current papal strategy, expansion of the pool is not an option. Making celibacy optional would retain many departing priests. It would also attract many married candidates. Celibacy, of course, is only an administrative policy adopted for other reasons over 1,000 years ago. The first apostles and almost all priests during the Church's first 1,000 years were married and married priests currently exist validly in the Church today. The New Testament provides some support for female priests and certainly does not prohibit female priests. Instead, the current papal strategy rejects these options to expand the candidate pool and now claims also to be excluding homosexual candidates even when they are not sexually active. If this new standard were applied to the current priest population, it would likely drastically decrease the number of current priests according to reliable surveys. If an inactive homosexual can meet the other requirements for priesthood, he should be accepted as a good prospect as many current homosexual priests have demonstrated. Contrary to the mean spirited attempt to blame homosexuality as the cause of child abuse, thorough evidence has disproven this clearly. Honest bishops admit this and ,at least in Europe, have said so publicly. Given that the current papal strategy is pointed towards reducing, not expanding, the priest pool, bishops strapped to staff parishes will be constrained even more to retain abusive priests. The Philly 2011 grand jury report confirms this, as does much other evidence. The implications for everyday Catholics of the Papal Strategy is not promising and will be discussed in my next comment below, Papal Strategy-9.
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-9
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-9 --This continues and completes my 8 comments above on Papal Strategy. The current Papal Strategy, as indicated in my 8 comments above, is now evidentally clear, even though the Vatican so far has managed to keep its abusive priest files secret and to shield the pope and relevant Curial decision makers from direct questions from determined journalists. The Vatican press officer, Fr. Lombardi, gets his information only through Curial intermediaries. He does not speak directly to the pope. This evasionary approach is unheard of in other government and corporate press offices. Presumably, the pope's outside lawyers have cautioned him to avoid making any statements to anyone that may later be used in a criminal prosecution. Similarly, in the US most bishops avoid speaking to the press unless it is a carefully controlled interview with a "friendly" reporter who provides his questions in advance. This papal strategy is reinforced with doctrinal positions and liturgical approaches that emphasize the uniqueness and high status of clerics, the lower status of the laity and the purported mystical quality of the pope--almost a form of "popalatry". Ecumenical efforts are in effect at a standstill. They were in many ways victim of their own success. The more these efforts established that other religions offered valid modes of worship, the more they made it easier for disenchanted Catholics to switch to them. Ironically, the abuse scandal has enhanced the Vatican's control over clerics, especially bishops, since Benard Law showed it is the legal sanctuary of last resort. The papal strategy is now pretty evident. Move the Church steadily toward a smaller, tightly controlled, organization with a supreme papal monarch and elevated Curia, obedient clerics and a docile laity. Unlike for-profit corporations that need ever increasing revenues to increase their earnings per share and stock prices, the hierarchy just needs enough money to provide a comfortable lifestyle for bishops, basic support for priests and enough left over to pay their skyrocketing legal expenses. If cash is tight in a particular diocese, expenses can be reduced by closing parishes and schools and selling other non-essential Church property. Financially, this will work so long as docile Catholics keep contributing and legal expenses do not bankrupt too many dioceses. A significant portion of the hierarchy's funding comes from very wealthy Catholics who like to socialize with bishops. For example, Cardinal Levada will speak in a few weeks at Ave Maria University which is funded mainly by Pizza Hut's founder, a major financial supporter of the Vatican and American bishops. These wealthy Catholics to date have made few demands on the bishops to reform the Church and are unlikely to do so anytime soon. Many of them like the bishops' support for Republicans who keep these contributors' income taxes low. The Republicans then every four years make mostly unkept promises on social value issues that reinforce the bishops' rigid sexual doctrines. In return, these political leaders keep the prosecutors away from the bishops and reject laws that would increase civil liabilities or criminal penalties for sexually abusing children. Many Democrats have a similar approach, and will not stand up, to the bishops, even to protect defenseless children. Given the Democrats social values platform, the Democrats cannot ever hope to get the bishops' overt support, but do hope at least to avoid their public opposition. To date the abuse scandal mainly has cost the US Church over $10 billion dollars--$3 billion in legal and settlement costs and over $7 billion in lost contributions over time from the more than 30 million US Catholics that have left the Church. The more important statistic is the more than 100,000 Catholics personally suffering because of this rampant sexual abuse. This includes reported victims, projected unreported victims and their families and loved ones. Most of the victims were young children who were taught to view a priest as God on earth, to be completely trusted. Will the current papal stategy succeed? Certainly not. As the totalitarian regimes in Wojtyla's Poland and in Ratzinger's Germany failed, so will the papal monarchy. While the Vatican now is free of invasions by more powerful European monarchs and has at present complete control of its bishops, its current strategy will not survive the relentless rule of law that is increasingly moving in on the hierarchy and even on powerful priest abusers. In Philly, two Cardinals are at legal risk. In Belgium, the longest serving bishop is at legal risk. The pope is currently under charges before the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. In Chile a powerful priest is under investigation and the prosecutor just seized all his lawyers' files, including records relating to recent canon law proceedings in Rome. In Ireland Judge Murphy's report through 2009 of the sexual abuses in Cloyne (Cork) is about to be released. The Cork bishop, John Magee, was a long time personal secretary to Montini and Wojtyla. After seven years of service, Wojtyla inexplicably exiled him to a minor Irish diocese. Magee spent twenty years on the papal staff working alongside Riglai. They both appear to have learned the Vatican's management style of secrecy and unaccountability. Rigali was Archbishop Dolan's episcopal mentor in St. Louis and presumably gave him some papal management lessons. Whether Magee will be the first Irish bishop to face a criminal prosecuton is uncertain. There is a new Irish government that does not appear hesitant to take on the Irish bishops. With this current papal strategy, what are Catholics' options? Catholics can continue with the Church, but cease contributions to bishops and keep close tabs on their young children. They can switch to safer Christian denominations as millions of other Catholics already have. They can try to take legal control of their parishes from their bishops as more and more Catholics are already doing. They can also ratchet up the pressure by public demonstrations against their bishops and personal protests to their local priests. If, as appears inevitable, some in the hierarchy are convicted and imprisoned in due course, some bishops may speak out since it will then become clear that not even unlimited funds for lawyers can protect them. That is it from me for now. As a cradle Catholic son of Irish immigrants, I have found writing these comments painful at times. With 16 years of Catholic school education before attending Harvard Law School, I knew some very good Sisters of St. Joseph, Christian Brothers and Dominican priests. I also knew some bad ones. The good ones need our continued respect and support, but they all must speak out forcefully and often as well. The high level of abuse could not have occurred without many, many other clerics taking notice of it and looking the other way. This too must end. I am now retired with six grandchildren, four in the Philly area. I want my grandchildren to be able to approach our God safely. I want abuse victims comforted, respected and compensated. I want criminal clerics fully prosecuted. I want good clerics supported. The Church must change and it will. The current papal strategy is doomed to fail. Have a blessed Easter and ask God's help to change our Church, to comfort victims and to forgive the contrite among us for our failures in letting this abuse debacle go on for so long. Pax.
Jerry Slevin, can't you have
Jerry Slevin, can't you have your pieces published in places such as www.reform-network.net, NSAC, the SNAP blog, on the abusetracker, or any national paper whatsoever? If we can get opinion pieces from John Allen spread, why not yours as a counter balance?
PAPAL POWER AND THE
PAPAL POWER AND THE MEDIA----Thank you, Martha, for that encouragement. The hierarchy is extremely powerful, both politically and economically, and frequently intimidates fiercely the media and journalists, as well as political leaders and prosecutors. It is a struggle to get an alternative view published. If you find my comments worthwhile, perhaps you and other NCR readers might start with asking NCR editors to carry my comments in a regular column. I work for nothing obviously and happily--but I have been hesitant so far to link up too tightly--this might limit my independence and flexibility. But I am open to more suggestions.
On the advice of legal
On the advice of legal counsel,
"the interview was so bizarre that it raises questions about Vangheluwe’s mental stability and his grasp of his situation."
PLEAD INSANITY, n'est-ce pas,Monseigneur?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Roger-Vangheluwe
"While we wait..."
http://www.france24.com/en/20110417-child-abuse-bishop-disappears-french...
To the best of my knowledge,
To the best of my knowledge, the late Hans Hermann Cardinal Groer, OSB, Archbishop Emeritus of
Vienna was never laicized; instead he was "banished" to a monastery to live of life of penance!
Oh, I did I mention he was a close confidante of soon-to-be beatified John Paull II ?
I am not at all sure you can
I am not at all sure you can actually remove him from his office.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishops have been deposed since the early church by popes, councils, synods, and kings. When a bishop has been sent to prison, it is fair to conclude, irrespective of what canon law may say, " he has been removed from office."
HABEMUS PAPAM: "Moretti
HABEMUS PAPAM:
"Moretti crossed a line by poking fun not just at the church or its leaders as a class, but the pope himself."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkACL29nvLEcP2sviddHu...
Let the viewing, PAYING public decide!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_rblImlFWA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr8O687r-60
Memo to Pope Benedict XVI:
PAPAM HABEMUS?
The movie's VERY SERIOUS theme song says it all!
Hören Sie zu!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8VqIFSrFUU
http://lyricstranslate.com/en/todo-cambia-everything-changes.html
In regard to Bishop Roger
In regard to Bishop Roger Vangheluwe:
His statements appear to have a sociopathic quality but that does not mean he is of unsound mind. He is defending his lengthy behavior when he was much younger. The belief that the victim enjoys the activity is common with men like Vangheluwe. Denial is often humans strongest emotion. For those of us who see this behavior and the denial think that men like Vangheluwe are irrational. They are not irrational but are practicing a form of lying. The only ones they fool is themselves.
The Pope and the State Belgian should apply the remedies that the laws provide. That includes italicization and imprisonment.
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-10
PAPAL STRATEGY&CHILD ABUSE-10 --There has just been an historic event that will likely affect my above 9 comments about Papal Strategy. Late yesterday a US Federal judge in Oregon ordered the Vatican within 60 days to turn over its secret files and answer written questions about a transferred Irish pedophile priest in a case with Vatican involvement. The US Supreme Court, with a majority of Catholic justices, had earlier denied the Vatican's claim of sovereign immunity protection in this case. This may be the first time in over 1,500 years that the Vatican has been compelled by an independent court of law, an American Federal court no less, to abide by the rule of law. At a time when the Philly criminal case is revealing that "zero tolerance" in practice begets "zero credibility" and a current Irish judicial report appears likely to show that, John Magee, a former personal secretary to three different popes, was operating in complete disregard of child protection policies, this Oregon development may add significant pressure on the Vatican to reassess the current Papal Strategy that I described in detail in my 9 comments above.
There is almost too much in
There is almost too much in Mr. Allen's article so that it's difficult to reply adequate to all the stories. I have nothing to add to the two articles about the sexual abuse crises whether it's Philadelphia or in Belgium, except that most of it has all been said before, that the additional information makes it all the more sordid and tragic and that my frustration/anger with the Vatican strategy to do nothing but drag its feet increases.
My one reaction to the article about the movie, "Habemus Papam" was the comment made by Mr. Allen recounting the experience shared by Joseph Ratzinger when he compared his election to Pope as capital punishment saying he could feel the "guillotine" descending. I was under the impression that Pope Benedict XVI actively pursued and sought for this punishment and so I find this statement more than a bit disingenous. I am looking forward to seeing the movie and I don't find the idea for an elected Pope to seek psychotherapy so terrible. I actually think that it would be a good process for all "Papabile" candidates to engage in, except I would suggest that they do it before rather than after. Yes, I know I'm not in conformity with the teaching of the church that the Pope is elected by the movement of the Holy Spirit. I did believe that, but am struggling with that in my "old age".
Jerry Slevin, a fascinating
Jerry Slevin, a fascinating diatribe and an utter fantasy. From the inside I can tell you it is virtually ALL about homosexuality. Your vain attempts to avoid that fact show your agenda. In fact it was your kind of agenda that led us to this situation. People like you and Sr. Johnson have done immense damage to the Church and enabled these crimes to occur. In the past those who cried out for a return to orthodoxy and discipline were treated viciously by folks like yourself. We should have zero tolerance of heresy and error. That would solve many of our problems. The Church is indeed changing under the leadership of Pope Benedict, thanks be to God.
On another note. There is no canonical prohibition against dismissing a bishop from the clerical state. However, only the Pope can do this and he is the ultimate judge.
HOLLOW PAPAL APOLOGIES-1
HOLLOW PAPAL APOLOGIES-1 Thank you, Fr. J . Once again, US Supreme Court Justice Brandeis' common sense wisdom has prevailed. He said the best way to find truth is to permit open discussion--"the best disinfectant for error is sunshine". We both agree that the "...Church is indeed changing under the leadership of Pope Benedict...". I have explained in detail why many of the changes he and his predecessor have made are contrary to the spirit of Jesus. I wish this had not been the case, but truth must prevail. Instead of addressing the evidence I presented, you have reorted to the typical knee-jerk and thoughtless reaction too frequently found in blogs like this. Just look at your word selection. Diatribe,fantasy,homosexuality,vain, agenda, damage, orthodoxy, discipline, heresy and error. Hardly a Christian response and certainly not an adequate reponse to the evidence I presented. Your approach is similar to Bully Donahues' high priced nonsense--if you can't respond to the clear and convincing evidence against you, just change the subject and sling the mud. In fairness, you did not (yet) call for my excommunication or execution as some papal apoligists have been known to say. Providentially, most Catholics today can think and they know with certainty that something is seriously wrong with their Church. Increasingly, these Catholics are standing up and proclaiming: Enough! So please keep on blogging, Fr. J. Every comment you write just proves further that my comments have not been responded to and adds credibility to my statements. Also, please think about either having the courage of your convictions and putting your real name on your comments. The use of "Fr." justs reinforces the inference that your apparent clericalism assumes you think your comments should get more acceptance. Sorry, those days are over. Truth, not overbearing authority, is now the coin of the realm. Otherwise, I would think of signing my comments as "Pope Jerry". Out of respect for NCR readers, I will let my words speak for me. You might try this occasionally. Hopefully, more and more Catholics may realize that my comments are not responded to by papal apologists because my comments are correct. Have a blessed Easter. PAX
Jerry Slavin, I forgot
Jerry Slavin, I forgot another appropriate word, "delusional." You won't get Vatican III, instead you will get Trent II. Your views are contrary to the spirit of Jesus. If we want to know the truth about who Jesus is we go to his Church, not to some guy who has delusions of grandeur. You are the one slinging mud and advocating the destruction of Christ's Church. Your statements do speak for you and what they say is not very complimentary. You, in fact, do imagine you are Pope Jerry. Get a grip. As for excommunication, you have already probably done it to yourself. At any rate your beliefs do not appear to be Catholic so you are not in full communion with the Church anyway. I would be happy to be Promoter of Justice in any excommunication trial you might undergo, I'll do it pro bono. However, it won't happen. You are simply not that important.
Btw, most won't respond because you have posted a massive number of falsehoods that would take a whole book length reply. Typical of such bigoted nonsense. Something is seriously wrong in Catholicism, look in the mirror.
Happy Easter.
"The pope is currently under
"The pope is currently under charges before the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court." Sadly, I have read that Dr Luis Moreno Ocampo, the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, has defended a priest against charges of priest sex abuse in the past. This Prosecutor is likely to be Catholic and likely to be biased in defending Pope Benedict XVI.
I have appreciated reading the summary by Harvard Law Graduate, Jerry Slevin, on how the clergy sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church has unfolded in his PAPAL STRATEGY & CHILD ABUSE 1-10, as read above.
As a family physician who has met many who have been sexually abused by priests, and as a cradle Catholic with over 16 years of Catholic education, I too would like to see the Roman Catholic Church become the type of Church that reflects the life and teachings and servant-leadership of Jesus, rather than a Church whose leaders are Roman princes accountable to no one.
I think it is important for non-Catholic lawyers and judges to be in charge of any cases, in regard to the worldwide clergy sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, in order for honest judgments to be made in behalf of the victim/survivors of priest sexual abuse. Therefore, I believe that a non-Catholic, non-biased Prosecutor from The Hague should be appointed to the case of Pope Benedict XVI in the International Criminal Court.
A new book that I recommend, which challenges the claim of diplomatic immunity of the Pope, and challenges the claim of the Vatican of being a sovereign state, is THE CASE OF THE POPE, written by G. Robertson, Queen's Counsel, human rights attorney, and judge at the United Nations for crimes against humanity. Mr Robertson calls the sexual abuse of innocent children by Roman Catholic priests worldwide, as "soul-murder" and I agree with him.
Sincerely, Dr Rosemary Eileen McHugh,M.D.,M.B.A., Chicago,IL, mchughrosemary@gmail.com
Jerry Slevin is a Harvard Law
Jerry Slevin is a Harvard Law graduate?
Surely such an education would have introduced him to the concept of paragraphs.
Dear OHthor: List the
Dear OHthor:
List the research that proves pederasts are curable. There is none. If you are talking about qualitative psuedo-studies performed by cleric psychologists (not trained in empirical research) to justify their own actions and support the hierarchy, that's another story. I know exactly what of what I speak. Ask any non-Catholic clerical abuse expert and they will confirm every detail.
Anger is a natural reaction to children still being exposed to the danger of abuse, a reaction clerical leaders and true believers have not exhibited, showing their own clouded judgment.
Philadelphia proves there are still priest molesters as yet un-named in ministry with easy access to children.
A woman I know chastized me for criticizing priest abusers 15 years aogo. I later found out her son was molested and she had never dealt with it. I spoke ill of a priest molester to another friend 10 years ago and she condemned me, only to begin talking in a litte girl's voice about a nun who climbed into bed every night with her at her boarding school.
So, perhaps thou doth protest too much.
I am presuming you are the
I am presuming you are the same Anonymous who posted a response to my comments above, since both carry the same mistake. That is, I did not say true pedophiles were "curable." I never used the word in my comments - you are the one who pulled it out to distort what I wrote. Shame on you. If you go back and read what I stated, you would see the points I was making were certainly not how you portray them to be. I do agree with you, Anonymous, that there are no reports that "prove pederasts are curable." Because, as you say, there is none.
It would be fitting if the
It would be fitting if the Irish released the Cloyne report on May 1st. John Paul's beatification should not completely revel in sunshine, but be reminded of the shadiness that many had to suffer because he refused to take the issue as seriously as he should have.
Hmmm.....this guy abuses two
Hmmm.....this guy abuses two people, then publicly admits to it AND sees no problem with what he did and the response is "they say, a period of monitoring and evaluation has to unfold before a final decision can be reached, away from the pressure created by intense media attention. Bottom line: We may be talking months, not days, before a final decision comes."
He isn't given the ultimatum "publicly recant" or we are gonna laicize ya......Fr. Bourgeois has a "belief"--that is he believes in woman's ordination and he is threatened with laicization!!!!!
It was extremely comforting that they had the abusers interests at heart rather than those abused: "Or is it to impose a life of prayer and penance, with the understanding that he will be housed in a setting where he can be monitored, given the support he needs, and kept on the straight and narrow?" Free room and board, three square meals a day, some counseling if needed (in case he is feeling upset about something or other...like why he can't be 'intimate' with little boys anymore!!!) maybe some HBO or direct TV and a maid to clean up after him.
I can see the hierarchy is taking this child abuse stuff seriously!!!!! All you nay-sayers out there should repent!!!
Cheers,
UH-OH John. Doesn't your
UH-OH John. Doesn't your procedure for determining what is moderate begin to sound a bit... relativist?
Post new comment