The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionO'Malley on the crisis, the visitation of women's orders, and Fatima
by John L Allen Jr on May. 14, 2010
Few Catholic bishops anywhere in the world have spent more time coping with the fallout from the sexual abuse crisis – pastoral, political, legal, and spiritual – than Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston. When he became bishop of Fall River, Massachusetts, in 1992, he inherited the infamous James Porter case, and ten years later he took over an archdiocese in virtual meltdown when he succeeded Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston.
O’Malley sat down with NCR on May 13 in Fatima, Portugal, where he’s participating in the visit of Pope Benedict XVI. He discussed the pope’s comments on the crisis en route to Portugal – insisting that the real problem is not attacks from the outside, but the reality of sin within the church – and other matters.
Highlights from the interview include:
- O’Malley said he “definitely” agrees with a recent statement from one of his brother cardinals, effectively rebuking another for insensitivity on the sexual abuse crisis. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, told reporters in late April that comments comparing criticism of Pope Benedict to “petty gossip” by Cardinal Angelo Sodano – who was John Paul II’s Secretary of State for fifteen years, and still the dean of the College of Cardinals – did “massive harm” to victims. Schönborn also faulted Sodano for his role in blocking an investigation of sex abuse charges against his predecessor in Vienna, Cardinal Hans Hermann Gröer. O’Malley agreed, saying Schönborn has had a deep “pastoral experience” of the crisis.
- O’Malley said the church shouldn’t be threatened by a critical analysis of how the crisis was handled by officials such as Sodano during the John Paul years, conceding that some Vatican officials “didn’t understand the seriousness of the problem or all its implications.” O’Malley insisted, however, that it would be unfair to impugn John Paul himself, since the crisis didn’t erupt until his health was already compromised and there was a tendency to “shelter” him from the worst of it.
- O’Malley said Pope Benedict’s words aboard the papal plane were “very helpful,” but expressed doubt that it will immediately halt a tendency to point fingers at outside forces – saying that trying to get senior officials on the same page is sometimes akin to “herding cats.”
- O’Malley said that going forward, any bishop who knowingly transfers a priest facing credible charges of sexual abuse “should be removed.”
On other subjects, O’Malley, a Capuchin Franciscan who sits on the Congregation for Religious in Rome, struck a reassuring note about the current visitation of women’s religious communities in the United States: “For a lot of the sisters, the big fears have been that we’re going to come in and say, ‘Put the habits back on, and give us all your money,’” he said. “Neither is going to happen!”
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.
O’Malley also explained that he has a longstanding devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, but it’s not focused on the apocalyptic speculation associated with the famous “secrets” of Fatima, but rather the simplicity implied in Mary appearing to three simple shepherd children. As a Capuchin Franciscan, O’Malley said, that preference for ordinary people, as opposed to the high-and-mighty, strikes him as “something beautiful.”
The following are excerpts from the May 13 interview with O’Malley, which took place shortly after an open-air Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict for a crowd estimated at a half-million people.
* * *
What brings you to Fatima?
I come to Fatima regularly, and I have for many years. I’ve always been in ministry to Portuguese-speaking people, for twenty years in Washington and then as bishop in Fall River, where the majority of the Catholics are Portuguese. … I’ve come to Portugal often over the years, and I have a lot of friends here. Actually, I just published a book here. (The Portuguese title is Anel e sandálias, “Ring and Sandals.”)
Do you have a particular devotion to Fatima?
I do, I always have. I’ve always been struck by the simplicity of the message – conversion and prayer. I think too it’s a devotion of the little people, and as a Franciscan, that excites me. This is where the anawim are. I think there’s something beautiful about that.
I’m intrigued at how extensive the devotion is beyond the Portuguese community. It’s enormous. In some ways in the States, I think it’s much bigger than Lourdes. Maybe the secrets were part of it, because a lot of people are fascinated by them. When I was a child, people used to talk about that a lot. Of course, that was in the Cold War days, with a fascination about Russia, the possibility of a nuclear war, and all that loomed very large. After the Cold War died off, I think the focus became different. It became more about Marian devotion and the message of prayer, conversion and penance.
With the Portuguese, I never saw the apocalyptic undertones. With the Irish Catholics in the States, it was a lot closer to the surface.
We were a lot more invested in the Cold War in the States ...
I think that’s it. With the Portuguese, that wasn’t the focus at all. I’ve been coming here for forty years or more, and there was never any emphasis on the secrets. It was always kind of marginal to what Fatima was about. It focused much more on God’s love for the little people, beginning with these three illiterate children.
Is there anything special about this trip of Benedict XVI to Fatima, in comparison to other times you’ve been here?
I think it’s very encouraging that at this time of crisis in the church, that the Holy Father would experience the support he has here. The crowds have been big and enthusiastic.
On the way to Portugal, the pope made some striking comments on the papal plane about the sexual abuse crisis. In effect, he said the problem isn’t so much outside attacks but rather the reality of sin inside the church. What did you think of that?
I think it’s very helpful that the Holy Father wants us to focus on the cause of the crisis, which is not anti-Catholicism. That’s always there, and people will always find things to criticize. Fundamentally, however, this is a problem that is of our own making. In great part, it’s due to our sinfulness, our human frailty, cowardice, many different failings that contributed to the crisis. It was helpful for him to articulate that, particularly because while we were getting beat up constantly in the Times, you did kind of want to strike back. But it begs the question as to why this happened in the first place.
There had been a fair bit of striking back, from some voices in the Vatican especially. Did you find that unhelpful?
It was not helpful. I was happy for some of the push-back that dealt with the facts, because many of the facts were distorted to put us in the very worst light. But our basic message has to be that we are repentant, that we are resolved to do everything to try to redress the wrongs the past, as much as we can, and to make sure that these situations don’t happen in the future. That requires a very definite policy, a strategy, which will need to be for the universal church, not just for the United States. For the longest time, this was kind of dismissed as an American problem. Now we see it’s a human problem, and in the church it’s become universal because the same deficiencies in dealing with the problem existed not just in the United States but in other places.
Is it your hope that in the wake of what the pope said on the plane, the finger-pointing is over?
I’m afraid it’s not. I wouldn’t be so optimistic. I think the Holy Father has shown himself to be aware of the dimensions of this problem and how serious it is for the church, and has been our closest ally in trying to correct it. But trying to bring everybody onto the same page is like trying to herd cats. I’m hoping that he will be able to assemble the kind of advisors he needs to come up with a very clear policy and message that could be put out there.
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna recently said that Cardinal Angelo Sodano’s language at the Easter Sunday Mass, referring to “petty gossip,” did “massive harm” to victims of sexual abuse. Were you glad to see that?
Yes, definitely. Of course, he has had a very first-hand experience pastorally of the damage that’s done by pedophilia in the church.
I’ve suggested that part of the reason the Vatican hasn’t told Benedict XVI’s story on the crisis is that to defend him, you have to identify the opposition he faced, which included some senior people such as Sodano – and that could end up tainting John Paul’s record. Do you share that concern?
I think it’s unfair to be projecting onto John Paul II. This crisis really blossomed at the end of his pontificate, when he was in very bad shape. Had he been younger, for example, he would have come to Boston. He wasn’t afraid of a problem. I think he was sheltered from a lot of this, by people who were trying to protect him.
Do you think it’s fair to critically examine the roles that senior aides to the pope such as Sodano and Cardinal Dario Castillon Hoyos played on this issue?
I think it would be helpful to study and find out exactly what happened. These officials often were far removed from what was happening in the States, so they were looking at this through a European prism. They didn’t understand the seriousness of the problem or all its implications. When Cardinal Ratzinger was exposed to all this, it was like an eye-opener. In general, those who became aware of the impact this was having on people’s lives were the ones who responded. I think the problem was often ignorance rather than malice, and I don’t think we should be threatened by an honest look at the record.
Benedict XVI had his fourth meeting with victims in Malta. Some in the Vatican worry about creating an expectation that he’ll do it on virtually every trip. What do you think?
If it’s going to be helpful to the local church, why not do it? I was so happy that the Holy Father consented back in 2008. First he was supposed to come to Boston, and that got nixed. I’m sure it was by people who were trying to distance him from the crisis. Then we contacted him, and we were very glad it happened. In many ways, it worked out better than if had come to Boston, because it wasn’t just a Boston event. Also, we were able to bring them in discreetly without having a media circus beforehand.
American bishops have to be feeling some vindication these days. Eight years ago when you first proposed your norms, there was resistance in Rome. Now you come off as the great pioneers. Do you have a sense that experience has proved you right?
Oh, I think so. Hopefully, we’ll be able to make a contribution to the universal church in this area.
You mean making the American norms universal?
In some form, yes. Also, we can give local churches a sense of how to deal with the crisis. When you’re in the throes of the first explosion, it’s very disconcerting and things move very fast. We made a very quick response. Of course, some people would say we were too quick, too draconian, but I think in retrospect what we did was very important. The fact that we were able to do it with such speed was a blessing.
Eight years later, are you still convinced that ‘one strike and you’re out’ was the right way to go?
I am. As I tell my priests, if you’re in a parish or a ministry, that’s the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Every Catholic can say, ‘This priest serving for us has never had a credible accusation against him.’ I think that’s comforting to our people, and also to the priests.
I’m really convinced that we have made the safety of children the priority in the United States. Our church agencies, schools, and programs are the safest place in the world for kids, because of the training and the screening that nobody else does as extensively as we do. Hopefully other churches and organizations will follow suit. I’m always disappointed that people aren’t more willing to contexualize the problem, seeing that the Catholic church really has dealt with it and tried to create programs to protect children. Why not extrapolate and do that in other areas where the abuse of children is far more prevalent?
What about accountability for bishops? Some would say that we now have strong accountability for priests who abused, but what about bishops who covered it up?
That’s something only the Holy See can determine. The Holy Father has begun to accept resignations. In Boston, the cardinal did resign. In Massachusetts, we now have laws that if I transfer a pedophile priest, they’d put me in jail. You can’t get much more accountable than that.
Did the crisis reveal a problem with episcopal accountability?
Yes and no. The bishops who acted the way they did probably did so thinking that was what they were supposed to do, and of course it wasn’t. There was a lot of ignorance in that. Part of the problem too is that when most of these bad decisions were being made, the focus was exclusively on the perpetrator and not on the child. There wasn’t an awareness of the damage that was done to the youngster. If people had even suspected the extent of the damage, they would have taken steps to make sure that these people didn’t have access to children, but it just wasn’t on the radar screen. Even the psychologists and the psychiatrists were telling bishops that people like Porter were ready to go back to work.
Let’s talk about accountability looking forward. Right now you have to have approval from a finance council before you sell off property above a certain dollar amount. What about getting approval from a pastoral council or review board before making certain personnel decisions?
Look, if a bishop has a cavalier attitude about ordaining someone who has a questionable background or reassigning someone, that bishop should be removed. Going forward, there shouldn’t be any doubt about what should be done.
You mean removed by the Holy See?
By the Holy See, exactly. They wouldn’t have the credibility to be able to govern if they had such bad judgment. I think that will happen. If a bishop now were irresponsible in dealing with this, I think the nuncio and the bishops in that conference would demand it.
You’re saying that even without new structural accountability, we have a new culture of accountability?
Exactly.
What about cooperation with civil authorities?
I think we should always have been dealing with the civil authorities. This is a crime, and it should have been reported as any other serious crime.
What about releasing documents to reveal what the church knew and when it knew it?
If it’s needed for the investigation, we should do it. I’m talking about giving documents to the Attorney General, not to the press. Sometimes the courts have forced the church to turn over all of their records, and then opened them up to the press. I think that’s not necessarily the right way to do things. Basically, however, I think there needs to be transparency and cooperation with the civil authorities, giving them all the help they need to do a serious investigation.
Our problem is that we didn’t report these cases, and so much time has elapsed that now everyone looks to the church to be the investigator, judge, jury and executioner for things that happened decades ago. We don’t have the resources to do that. We can’t issue subpoenas, we don’t have investigators or courts in the civil sense. We’ve had to do the best we could. The review boards have been a great blessing for us, and the people who have served on them have been extraordinary. They’ve faced some very difficult cases, and I think they’ve handled them with a great sense of responsibility to the victims, to society, and to the church. But it’s not the way these things should be done, because we’re playing catch-up and trying to invent a judicial system to make up for the fact that these men never had to defend themselves in a court of law.
You sit on the Congregation for Religious, and you have an obvious interest in religious life. What are your hopes for the visitation of women religious in the United States?
I’m very concerned that it’s being received so negatively. My hope had been that it would be like the seminary visitation: It gave people an opportunity to look at themselves in preparation for the visitation, what they’re doing right and what they’re doing wrong, and how they could do things better. I got together with all the major superiors in Boston and tried to encourage them. I wrote them a letter and listened to their questions and fears.
The end result is not going to be devastating for women religious in America?
I’ve been saying that over and over. For a lot of the sisters, the big fears have been that we’re going to come in and say, ‘Put the habits back on, and give us all your money.’ Neither is going to happen! If that’s what you’re worried about, relax.
Hopefully, it will help us to understand what’s happened to religious life in the last thirty to forty years, and where religious life needs to be headed in the future. All of the studies that have been done about young people coming into religious life today tell us they’re looking for more traditional, stronger communities, with corporate ministries, shared prayer, and external signs of identity such as a habit.
After the Second Vatican Council, a lot of our religious communities, I think, evolved into something like secular institutes. People might have a lay job, living in an apartment. They live the vows, they live good lives, but it’s something different from traditional religious life with its stress on community and a common spiritual life. The secular institutes have never had many vocations. It’s always been a very small cohort in the church. I think that some of our religious communities went that way, and they lost the ability to recruit a lot of young women who are really looking for community. You see it in the movements – the Focolare, the Memores Domini in Communion and Liberation, the numeraries in Opus Dei. It wasn’t just the habit, it was community, shared spirituality, and so on. I hope when all of the dust settles, people will use this as a moment of grace to ask where we’ve come from and where we’re going.
The trick is to make the best of it. It’s like the new translation of the Missal. I tell the priests, you can be up there hand-wringing and apologizing for it, or you can use it as an opportunity to reintroduce people to liturgical spirituality and the centrality of the Sunday Eucharist. Which is it going to be?
Does some of the suspicion out there reflect the fact that bishops and women’s religious have grown apart over the last forty years?
That may be, though on the side of the bishops part of the reason for that has been to respect the autonomy of the communities. I hear all of these horror stories about my predecessor, Cardinal O’Connell, who used to choose the names for the nuns and tell them how long their veil could be, all this kind of nonsense. I think we’ve gone to the other extreme, where the sisters are estranged from the hierarchy. In the past there was too much interference in the internal life of the communities, and we reacted against that by emphasizing their autonomy. In practice, that probably means that sometimes we don’t know one another as well as we should.
It’s easier for suspicion to grow up in that kind of environment.
Exactly, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Could one of the fruits of the visitation be to create opportunities for those relationships to develop?
I hope so, because that’s what we desperately need.
Did some of the momentum for the visitation come out of the symposium on religious life in which you were involved at Stonehill College in 2009?
I think you’re right. The dynamic at that meeting was interesting, because at Stonehill the sisters who spoke all came from LCWR communities, and they were somewhat critical of the LCWR’s way of doing things. [Note: The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, or LCWR, is the major umbrella group for women’s communities in the United States. It’s popularly perceived as having a fairly liberal orientation.] Afterwards, some sisters came up to me and said, ‘Why didn’t you have someone from some of the more progressive communities?’ But there wasn’t anyone from the Conference of Major Superiors of Women [another umbrella group, perceived as more conservative.] They were all from LCWR communities. I think that had a big impact on Rodé [Cardinal Franc Rodé, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious, who attended the Stonehill symposium]. It seemed to show that within these communities, which can seem so monolithic, there are other voices that aren’t being heard.
I was actually translating for Rodé, and one of the questions he got was about a visitation. At the time, he seemed to dismiss it as being too difficult because of the sheer numbers involved and so forth. Obviously, though, it got him thinking.
Were you consulted prior to the decision to launch the visitation?
No.
Had you been consulted, would you have recommended for or against it?
I don’t know. Being an optimist, I probably would have thought that the visitation would be easier than it’s proving to be. I’m just glad I’m not running it! Mother Clare Millea, by the way, who is running it, is a lovely person. I keep telling the sisters that: ‘You know, they’re not sending Godzilla!’
I do think they kind of rushed it. I think there could have been more build-up and better preparation, better consultation beforehand. This is so complicated, and there’s such a spectrum within religious life.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Benedict's Trip to Portugal
John Allen's recent reporting from Rome |
Sean O'Malley...for the first
Sean O'Malley...for the first American Pope.
Seconded.
Seconded.
Thirded (is that even a word)
Thirded (is that even a word)
The very fact that the
The very fact that the investigation of the LCWR is happening at all is a ruse. Sean O'Malley may have a better attitude toward women religious in general than do the right wingers who are conducting the witch hunt, but make no mistake, it is a political witch hunt and very little good will come of it. The men in Rome know that any adverse punishment of these remarkable women will be a fatal blow to their already disappearing authority. They also know that in the age of the Internet, any negative news will travel fast and the reactions of the average lay Catholic will be swift. This is a justice and dignity issue also. There is very little of either by the mere fact that this witch hunt is ongoing. Trust is at an all time low level because of the words and actions from right wing bishops and cardinals around the world. Anger the People of God and you do so at your own peril.
Cardinal O'Malley's statement
Cardinal O'Malley's statement that many in the Vatican considered the age and infirmities of Pope John Paul II and shielded him from much of the sordidness of the clergy abuse information. What a clear and ringing endorsement for the retirement of a Pope when his physical, mental health or age makes it difficult or impossible to carry on the business of his "office".
If Benedict really has turned
If Benedict really has turned the corner on his handling of the Hierarchal coverup of sexually abusive clerical underlings, then why hasn't Cardinal Law been returned to the USA to face the music???
If the statute of limitations has run out, is he afraid that the Cardinal could then be sued for civil damages in his aiding and abetting coverup???
Perhaps that is why the LC & Regina Coeli were left virtually intact, so as not to disturb the golden goose who gives money to the religious coffers???
The Attorney General of
The Attorney General of Massachusetts looked into the situation in Boston, and concluded that there was no basis for prosecution of Cardinal Law. The AG certaily did excoriate Law, but there was no law to cover this.
In case you hadn't noticed, the Archdiocese of Boston has been sued for civil damages several times.
"On the way to Portugal, the
"On the way to Portugal, the pope made some striking comments on the papal plane about the sexual abuse crisis..."
And once he landed, he kept right on STRIKING OUT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/europe/14pope.html
http://www.euronews.net/2010/05/14/papal-pressure-in-portugal-over-gay-m...
Memo to current pope:
Great Britain awaits you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7125345.ece
And the truth does make you
And the truth does make you whole - or something like that.
Will we see all of this the
Will we see all of this the Boston Pilot?
O'Malley's comment that
O'Malley's comment that Cardinal Law has effectively been held to account when he resigned is jejune in the extreme. Law "got out of Dodge" before the law caught up with him and now hold holds a number of positions of honor in Rome. This is being held accountable? What about the primate of Ireland who admits to shielding a priest who went on to abuse additional children. The primate should be fired, if he lacks the integrity to resign. Cardinal Levada was successfully sued by one of his own priests, a whistle-blower, as reported not to long ago in NCR. Levada's "punishment" is to be brought to Rome and placed in charge of the department that oversees abuse cases. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house!
As regards the visitation of our nuns, there is something fundamentally flawed in a power structure that gives the leaders of a male caste system the audacity to think that they are empowered to investigate women who are giving a much more effective witness to the Gospel of Jesus than are their scarlet-robed male conterparts.
I wonder what O'Malley's take is on Pope Ratzinger's invitation to the conservative wing of the Anglican church which says, in effect, "If you don't like gays and are against empowering women, come on over."
What planet is O'Malley living on?
We Catholic laity know there are fine priests and bishops out there. We just can't trust ourselves to trust them. The abusers were and are among the most charming and "caring" clerics in their parishes. I have asked several friends if they would leave their grandchildren (I'm a 74-year-old grandfatehr) alone with a priest. Not one said yes!
I am not a relgious, but I
I am not a relgious, but I looked at the major presentations at the Stonehill symposium when they were posted online. The program did seem to be loaded in favor of an approach to the religious life colored with nostagia for the way things were done in the past.(What did they really expect Sister Sara Butler to say?, or Cardinal Rode himself?) Cardinal O'Malley seems to have been surprised by the fact that only discontented members of LCWR seemed to be speaking up, but is it likely this happened by accident? His own homily on the occasion suggests that he came holding many of the same views with which he left.
Here is his homily:
http://www.stonehill.edu/Documents/Mission%20Office/Cardinal%20O'%20Malley's%20Homily.doc
Here is Cardinal Rode's presentation:
http://www.zenit.org/article-23916?l=english
Here is Sister Butler's presentation:
http://www.zenit.org/article-23921?l=english
Years ago we were about
Years ago we were about habits and outward signs. After Vat.II we examined our witness and said the outward signs were not the whole witness. People need more. Our young people today are looking for identity because many come from broken homes, there are no role models in our society for them and they are looking in community what they should have gotten growing up in stable families. Jobs are not out there for them and identities are almost nill. That leaves an immaturity gap. Religious life is not the traditional place to heal insecurities.
I have a bit of trouble with
I have a bit of trouble with accountability when recalling how Cardinal Law was handled - brought to Rome with a "big job" after retiring from Boston. When the Cardinal "retires" I will believe Rome is sincere about stepping up to the situation.
I get the impression that
I get the impression that John Allen doesn't read his own newspaper--How did he miss the opportunity to get Cardinal O'Malley to comment on the Hingham decision to ban a child of lesbian parents from a Catholic school in his own archdiocese, and whether he supported the statements of the staff of the archdiocese back in Boston?
Like his counterparts in the
Like his counterparts in the corporate media, JA has to go along to get along. And never, EVER hold any miter or red hat to account. Toe the party line or lose access and join the unemployment line.
Dear John, Cardinal O'Malley,
Dear John, Cardinal O'Malley, a Capuchin with a vow of poverty whom I admired a lot when he was here in DC in his early priesthood ministering to the very poor, tells you he admires "simplicity" but also says, "I come to Fatima regularly, and I have for many years." One wonders, "Who has paid for all these trips to Europe when most US Catholics could not afford even one such trip?" (And, on this trip, he gets to appear with the Pope and other important prelates - and get interviewed by you). Simplicity?
About every two or three weeks another bishop gets installed in a US diocese. Usually, at least a dozen or more bishops travel to attend such, a form of clerical networking. Who pays for all these trips, the airfare, the hotels, the meals? Simplicity?
At Vatican II, the American bishops were an object of scandal and humor. They had big suites at the best hotels while many second and third world bishops were lucky if they had an austere room at the convent of some kind nuns. Simplicity?
Too many US bishops have traded celibate service of the Church for power and wealth (paid for by widows and orphans), trading one form of worldliness for another. It is sad that the once idealistic O'Malley seems also to have succumbed to this worldly clerical cult of power and privilege.
I am reminded of the meetings
I am reminded of the meetings between the German authorities and the Russian generals and political types after the fall of Berlin in 1945. Both had to make the best of the rotten mess which was being handed to them.We in the Traditional Movement, who are effectively more than five zip codes away, have no interest in any of it as it is irrelevant to us.
Sean likes to have it both
Sean likes to have it both ways!
The following is only one such example: Re: the new translation of the Mass. "I tell the priests, you can be up there hand-wringing and apologizing for it, or you can use it as an opportunity to reintroduce people to liturgical spirituality and the centrality of the Sunday Eucharist. Which is it going to be?"
We already have liturgical spirituality and the Sunday Eucharist is Central!
Sean likes to have it both
Sean likes to have it both ways!
The following is only one such example: Re: the new translation of the Mass. "I tell the priests, you can be up there hand-wringing and apologizing for it, or you can use it as an opportunity to reintroduce people to liturgical spirituality and the centrality of the Sunday Eucharist. Which is it going to be?"
We already have liturgical spirituality and the Sunday Eucharist is Central!
"But there wasn’t anyone from
"But there wasn’t anyone from the Conference of Major Superiors of Women [another umbrella group, perceived as more conservative.] They were all from LCWR communities."
I am confused, I thought this was just the opposite. The meeting was held with the more conservative group from the Conference of Major Superiors of Women and not from LCWR.
"It’s like the new
"It’s like the new translation of the Missal. I tell the priests, you can be up there hand-wringing and apologizing for it, or you can use it as an opportunity to reintroduce people to liturgical spirituality and the centrality of the Sunday Eucharist."
I was with you up until then. If ever there is a great example of telling everyone who is in charge and who do 'we' listen to this is it. Centrality of the Sunday Eucharist? What? I'm sorry but you lost me here.
If the Visitation is being done in with the same mindset that this Translation is being foisted on us then it doesn't bode well for the Women.
I thought this was a very
I thought this was a very good article. While I believe he was off the mark at the Ted Kennedy funeral, he provides an excellent summary of the abuse crisis and the Pope's visit to Fatima.
While I believe he is a little too sympathetic to the LCWR, after re-reading this article, he does hit the nail on the head when he speaks about the meeting at Stonehill College when he said the following:
"The dynamic at that meeting was interesting, because at Stonehill the sisters who spoke all came from LCWR communities, and they were somewhat critical of the LCWR’s way of doing things. Afterwards, some sisters came up to me and said, ‘Why didn’t you have someone from some of the more progressive communities?’ But there wasn’t anyone from the Conference of Major Superiors of Women. They were all from LCWR communities. I think that had a big impact on Rodé. It seemed to show that within these communities, which can seem so monolithic, there are other voices that aren’t being heard."
This is very true. I believe the two speakers on religious life at that conference were Sister Elizabeth McDonough, a Dominican Sister of St. Mary of the Springs, and Sister Sara Butler, a Missionary Sister of the Most Blessed Trinity. Neither of these sisters are from communities that could hardly be described as traditional by any stretch of the imagination. These sisters represent a number of sisters who are members of LCWR communities privately suffer and mourn the direction their communities have taken over the years.
Additionally, Cardinal O'Malley makes some other excellent points about religious life in general when he said the following:
"For a lot of the sisters, the big fears have been that we’re going to come in and say, ‘Put the habits back on, and give us all your money.’ Neither is going to happen! If that’s what you’re worried about, relax.
"Hopefully, it will help us to understand what’s happened to religious life in the last thirty to forty years, and where religious life needs to be headed in the future. All of the studies that have been done about young people coming into religious life today tell us they’re looking for more traditional, stronger communities, with corporate ministries, shared prayer, and external signs of identity such as a habit."
"After the Second Vatican Council, a lot of our religious communities, I think, evolved into something like secular institutes. People might have a lay job, living in an apartment. They live the vows, they live good lives, but it’s something different from traditional religious life with its stress on community and a common spiritual life. The secular institutes have never had many vocations. It’s always been a very small cohort in the church. I think that some of our religious communities went that way, and they lost the ability to recruit a lot of young women who are really looking for community. You see it in the movements – the Focolare, the Memores Domini in Communion and Liberation, the numeraries in Opus Dei. It wasn’t just the habit, it was community, shared spirituality, and so on. I hope when all of the dust settles, people will use this as a moment of grace to ask where we’ve come from and where we’re going."
Indeed! First of all, none of these Sisters who are no longer in a habit would even obey that directive. What will likely happen is that the communities found to be lacking will be given recommendations to that focus upon how to attract vocations based what Cardinal O'Malley says about what young people are looking for in a religious community as stated above. Whether these communities choose to do this or not will be the decision as to whether they wish to remain alive or not.
Dear TNCath, It strikes me as
Dear TNCath,
It strikes me as quite arrogant that you seem to know the mind of all of "these Sisters who are no longer in habit." I wonder why they strike such a negative chord in you?
Secondly, I wonder about Bishop O'Malley's belief in a new sort of accountability without new structures of accountability. The hierarchy is such a closed system. How would anyone know if a bishop is being cavalier about ordaining someone of questionable background? Aren't all bishops cavalier about all assignments by nature? Each diocese is, after all, the bishop's "territory," where he is free to ordain and assign as he pleases. I know there are priest's councils, but they, too, are part of the same system. It's the same with those who "assign/appoint" bishops. There is not much consultation with lay people who will be most affected by these appointments.
Let's face it. Any appointee
Let's face it. Any appointee by Rome of any man to become named as a Cardinal, is tainted from the start. Sean O'Malley is hardly living the Franciscan life of poverty if he makes so many trips to Portugal. Like most Cardinals, he is there for the sole purpose of "propping" up an imperial papacy and the imperial court of princes known as Cardinals. It's all wrong and it is a failed system that does not serve the Kingdom of God but instead serves an elitist group of men who live in splendor at the cost of the Church. It has to go. O'Malley may talk a good line but in the end he is there to be a shill for Joe Ratzinger.
mr smith- you seem to like to
mr smith- you seem to like to post alot here---judgemental, hypercritical, uncharitable. Please remember the lords words "judge not that YOU may not be judged." Do you EVER have anything kind, positive, charitable to say. Your remarks about Cardinal Omalleys travels were just more of the same from you.
O'Malley quietly reinstated a
O'Malley quietly reinstated a priest accused of soliciting and offering to pay a 12-year old girl for oral sex, along with her mother no less, in a Chelsea bar a few years ago.
See the case of Fr. Jerome Gillespie at http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/03_04/2008_04_26_Paulson_P...
There was no physical contact, says the archdiocese, and the priest was “under the influence” ---why is that not incriminating instead of exculpatory? Abusers do not abuse because they drink but drink in order to abuse.
See case history at http://www.bishop-accountability.org/assign/Gillespie_Jerome_F.htm Snip: Summary of Case: Accused of asking oral sex on 1/25/05 from woman and daughter age 12. Resigned 1/28/05. Pleaded not guilty to enticing child, soliciting sex, annoying/accosting, and assault. Most charges dismissed 4/4/05. Pleaded sufficient facts to annoying/accosting charge. Case continued pending alcohol and sexual offender evaluations with treatment if indicated, and no contact with minors without disclosing case. Case dismissed 2007. Returned to work without announcement. Was Lynnfield supply priest 4/08.
Why does O’Malley do something like this, while claiming to protect children? His definition of sexual harassment is incomplete.
Also, bishops in his mind come out as poor misled leaders in this piece; "they just didn’t know." Not convincing, and the evidence is contrary to O'Malley's excusing view.
" It’s like the new
" It’s like the new translation of the Missal. I tell the priests, you can be up there hand-wringing and apologizing for it, or you can use it as an opportunity to reintroduce people to liturgical spirituality and the centrality of the Sunday Eucharist. Which is it going to be?"
What an outrage! Give me a break! How can one use a seriously-flawed translation to "reintroduce people to liturgical spirituality" -- as if they need to be RE-introduced? What is it exactly that those people have been doing every Sunday for 4O-some years? The translation is seriously flawed from a linguistic standpoint, but more importantly from a theological standpoint: It is practically dripping with blood from the lies, deceit, and sheer power grabs involved in its creation. It is an affront to collegiality, to the Council's constitutions on the liturgy and on the Church, and an affront to the intelligence of clergy and laity alike. Requiring priests to stand up and lie to their congregations about it is just plain sinful. This liturgical "translation" is not the work of the Holy Spirit. It needs to be resisted, not "made the best of".
In case they hadn't noticed, this "translation" is also an affront to our bishops. Our hierarchy needs to stand up like real men and be counted on this issue, and not be brow-beaten by a bunch of church bureaucrats in green eyeshades and fancy cassocks. Corruption and greed for power are clearly very real within the Roman Catholic Church in the 21st century.
Wrong that Law was
Wrong that Law was effectively called to account by resigning. He'll be held to account when they defrock him. Either the Vatican begins defrocking all living bishops who were responsible for shielding pedophile priests or you can kiss the credibility of the Church leadership goodbye forever. Its that simple.
I would encourage anyone who
I would encourage anyone who feels as if the new mass translations are being imposed on us with no input from us to sign Fr. Michael Ryan's petition at:
www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org
While I admire Cardinal Sean O'Malley greatly and know that he is a very humble man, I do not agree with him regarding the new mass translations. A year-long tryout should be conducted in parishes (small, large, rural, urban) and on college campuses across the country before this is finalized. South Africa's experience has shown that the translations are not being received by the people in the pews. Rather than risking a fiasco in the US for the sake of bowing to the will of Vox Clara, a test period soliciting feedback should take place. Many of us take Vatican II seriously. We are entitled to be consulted in matters that affect us, particularly the celebration of the Eucharist, which is so central to our faith. I think this is probably, as much as anything else, why the Sisters have been so upset over the visitations. They were not consulted in advance.
Don't make the same mistake with the people in the pews!
John, you were putting
John, you were putting Cardinal O'Malley a bit on the spot re Sodano and Castrillon-Hoyos. Just the same I believe there is widespread feeling that these two people have got to go. And maybe Law too. The cleansing needs to be top down as much as bottom up.
Can't they see that themselves?
His Eminence needs to be
His Eminence needs to be reminded that justice starts at home and he has several church vigils going on where he has decided to shut down a parish. Secular media has been very sympathetic to the people maintaining the vigils, trying to keep their churches from being shuttered and sold down the river. Did Mr. Allen ask His Eminence about this subject back home while covering a wide variety of topics ?
Regarding Fatima, I think
Regarding Fatima, I think that many in the church, and definitely many Christians outside the church, are turned off by their impression that many Catholics focus on "secrets" of supernatural visitations by Mary. Perhaps it smacks of magic and cult-like spirituality rather than on a faith based on Scriptural inspiration and a Jesus-focused message. Why is the Cardinal taking so many trips to Fatima?
Secondly, as a former religious who was around when Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles fractionated the I.H.M. Community because he didn't agree with the direction it was going in carrying out Vatican II directives, I know what non-democratic hierarchical authority can do. No wonder there is mistrust.
Cardinal O'Malley had a tough
Cardinal O'Malley had a tough job when he took over Boston and I think he has done a good job of restoring the faith of the Catholics in that diocese in the Church. But reading closely, it looks like the visitation of the sisters was his idea originally. As to secular institutes, he seems to have the idea that they are filled with people who are "doing their thing". Just because you don't wear a habit, let me tell you from my 8 years' life in a secular institute that there was plenty of community - we lived in community wherever we were sent, we worshipped together, prayed together, practiced poverty, chastity and obedience. Obedience to the point of ridiculousness sometimes, worthy of any Carmelite convent! But that is probably true in many communities. Sisters in traditional religious communities that I have spoken to since my time there are surprised at the lack of autonomy we had and the degree to which we were controlled in our thoughts and actions. Nevertheless, the group I belonged to has continued to grow and prosper, attracting many young people. So there..
Why have subsequent comments
Why have subsequent comments from several days ago not been posted?
Until the "Holy Father" and
Until the "Holy Father" and "eminence" Sean publically call for Bernard Law to return to Boston to face a court of law, their babbling about "accountability" is obvious hypocrisy.
How can anyone with an once of moral sensitivity allow a man like Law, who was complicituous in the rape of countless children, to continue in a major symbolic position, living in a palace, and have people kissing his ring?
Ratzinger simply needs to say: "Bernie, as your boss and moral superior, I'm ordering you to go back to Boston and put yourself at the disposal of anyone who wants to talk with you.
While I appreciate John Allen
While I appreciate John Allen Jr's articles and their insight into the vatican I would suggest that the ongoing title "all things Catholic" is neither appropriate nor accurate. Catholicism is so much deeper, broader and more substantive than the limited perspective which is presented as if it were - all things catholic. All things vatican, okay, all things catholic, not so. To postulate that his reporting focus, the vatican and hierarchy is "all" there is to catholicism is to do a disservice to the reality and growing insistance that the Vatican and the patriarchical hierarchy in Rome and elsewhere is far from the fullness of what "is" Catholic.
No one has asked the hundreds
No one has asked the hundreds of bright educated young professed women who fled from the orders in the past 30 years. There in lies the tale.
I have met several as neighbors and working colleagues. They are usually very quiet regarding their former experiences. On occasion they will state simply and with candor the situations that caused the separation for themselves and other dear friends. The pain of what I suspect was humiliating abuse (yes, physical/social/spiritual abuse) is that sadly none of these women are practicing Catholics today. Not one.
This man from Boston and Fatima is saying that the institutional nonsense they fled should be reinstated, burkas/habits and all. They fled because of the practices of humilition, denigration, and loss of personal soul in these self same orders. They were abused in person and spirit. One friend I know was shamed daily for months and months before she left in silence, fear and absolutely alone. She said she was so unprepared for life, so beaten down in spirit that she did indeed consider prostitution as her only means of supporting herself financially.
Imagine.
Some twenty years later she and her fellow sisters who fled received a letter of apology. We are very good friends yet I never inquire of her life in the convent in Milwaukee or Mississippi such is her discomfort. I only listen and Clare Millea should as well. Ask, not ignore the victims. They know what would work or not.
I am a practicing RC and a woman. As a retired RN I have understood for decades the horror of child sexual abuse as this jaded clerical hierarchy has not. The notions of "secrecy" espoused by the Vatican in child sexual abuse situations and blaming the victims applies to both travesties. There are few new fresh religious vocations in America without the whole hearted support of RC women/mothers. At this time my bright, gifted, caring grandchildren would not have mine. The monies in every Sunday collection are offered by RC women in the pews in America. Without our continued financial support we could cause change. Change can occur....must occur.
I am a young catholic priest
I am a young catholic priest who has little exprience with woman's religous orders. I just want you to know that I respect your thoughts and your experience. Believe me, your words have caused more change in me than any ups or downs in the collection plate. May we pray for one another and for authentic healing change within the church. God Bless you!
Benedict's visit to Portugal
Benedict's visit to Portugal must have had quite an impact on the government: The Prime Minister today signed gay marriage into law.
Way to go, Portugal.
Post new comment