The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionPicking the brain of the U.S. bishops' thinker-in-chief
by John L Allen Jr on Jan. 07, 2011
In his first interview since stepping down in mid-November as president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago looked back this week at the pivotal moments during his three-year term: The election of Barack Obama; a bruising debate over health care reform; chronic tensions over the authority of the bishops; and a massive new wave of the sexual abuse crisis.
I sat down for the exclusive conversation with George, who celebrates his 74th birthday later this month, on Wednesday in his office at the Archbishop Quigley Center in downtown Chicago.
When George was elected president of the conference in 2007, it inevitably evoked memories of another Chicago cardinal, Joseph Bernardin, who also once held the job, and who shaped the ethos of American Catholicism throughout the 1970s and 80s. Whether George’s more evangelical imprint will have the same staying power as Bernardin’s moderate, social justice-oriented vision remains to be seen, but there’s no doubt that a vast swath of the conference today sees George as its intellectual leader.
If Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York is now the face and voice of the U.S. bishops, in other words, George is still their brain -- and it’s well worth picking that brain for his sense of the “state of the union” in the American church.
Among the highlights of the interview:
- George said debates over Catholic identity these days often pivot on the authority of the bishop – and he said bishops are more prepared to “take possession of their vocation,” not just as teachers and preachers, but as governors who exercise, however reluctantly, “the power to punish.”
- He wondered aloud if the “Faithful Citizenship” guides issued by the bishops in advance of national elections may be an exercise in futility, since they offer broad moral principles to a pragmatic culture interested only in specific conclusions.
- He asserted the church has been “true to its promises” on sex abuse, weeding out predators and creating a safe environment. He expressed hope that as time goes on, the “zero tolerance” policy can be balanced against protecting priests from false accusations -- some of whom, he said, have been “severely damaged” by the experience.
- George conceded that while bishops are now punished just like priests if they abuse, there’s not the same degree of accountability for bishops who covered up abuse or failed to prevent it. He said more work may need to be done, while insisting there is a growing “informal” spirit of accountability in the church.
- He said a breach between the U.S. bishops and the Catholic Healthcare Association over health care reform has produced “good conversation” -- adding that if the CHA wants to repair relations, one important signal would be joining the bishops in support of the Pitts-Lipinski Amendment, designed to restore restrictions on abortion funding.
- George admitted some surprise that the bishops broke with tradition by passing over the vice-president of the conference, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, to elect Dolan as president. He admitted that given the pace of change in the 21st century, it now may be an anachronism to think the bishops can pick the right leader three years in advance.
Excerpts from the interview appear below.
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.
*****
NCR: Three years ago, I asked you if there was an overarching theme you hoped would mark your term as USCBB president, and you said ‘Catholic identity.’ Three years later, were you able to move the ball?
George: I don’t know that I was able to move the ball, but I think the divergences in understanding of Catholic identity have been clarified in the last three years. If that creates better dialogue, clearer dialogue, then I think that’s something desirable.
Part of Catholic identity is the role of the bishop, meaning the ministry of bishops and the leadership of bishops, which has been contested for many reasons. We need a lot more conversation around that topic.
Are you encouraged by how that conversation is shaping up?
It depends on where you start. Am I encouraged by divisions in Catholic communion? No. Am I encouraged by the fact that it’s now necessary to talk about differences in self-understanding? Yes. Am I hopeful about the bishops taking possession of their own vocation in the church? Yes.
By the bishops’ vocation, what do you mean?
The teaching dimension, I think, has been very well carried for many decades, both individually in many dioceses and collectively by the conference. The part of the definition that hasn’t been attended to is governing. The sexual abuse crisis is evidence of that. If bishops had governed more clearly between 1973 and 1986, when statistics tell us most of the abuse took place, it might have been contained more quickly, and we would not be subject to the terrible crisis it has caused us.
Your reading is that bishops today are more ready to exercise their powers of governance?
Yes, and to do so responsibly.
You led the conference during the 2008 elections, when it followed a different process to produce the “Faithful Citizenship” document intended, in part, to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation. How do you think that worked, and what’s the future of “Faithful Citizenship?”
I think it’s hard to use a document like that, because it gives principles and not conclusions, and in a pragmatic culture people always go for the conclusions. So, I don’t know that it worked well, and therefore I don’t know what its future is. Some have spoken about starting from Caritas in Veritate [a 2009 social encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI] and reconstructing the document. I think that’s an idea that should be looked at.
If you stay with classical moral theology, then ‘Faithful Citizenship’ is a very good statement of the principles that help to guide a conscience when you make a decision about whom to vote for. The bishops will not, and should not, come to a conclusion about any particular candidate or any particular party – to the chagrin of some and the dismissal of others. I think we have to look at the whole question again, about how the bishops participate in the public conversation that leads to political choices.
One irony of your term is that shortly after you were elected president of the conference, a fellow Chicagoan was elected President of the United States. Has that given you any entrée to the Obama administration?
No, and I don’t think it should have. No matter who was president, I think the administration related to the bishops appropriately. We’re not of the same mind about a lot of things, but I think the conversation would probably have been the same no matter who was the president of the conference.
In 2010, we saw another eruption of the sexual abuse crisis, this time focused on Europe, the Vatican, and the pope. Did the events of 2010 effect your thinking about where things stand?
They reinforced the frustration of a good number of bishops, and of Catholics generally, that the story told by the media really hasn’t changed in fifteen or twenty years, when in fact the response of the church has changed mightily.
I think the church is true to her promises. The bishops promised that nobody reasonably accused of this crime, after a preliminary investigation of some sort, could be in active ministry. Many of them are now out of the priesthood. Besides that, we’ve helped children come to understand what an unwelcome advance might be, and we have children coming forward now saying, ‘I wasn’t comfortable.’ We have also trained lay people to watch for evidence of abuse, and a lot more of that now is part of parish life. Because of background checks, we’ve also indicated to some people that we really can’t accept you as part of the public ministry of the church. So, we have put in an enormous number of precautions.
What I’m most proud of in this archdiocese is the outreach to victims. Sometimes it’s well received, sometimes not, because many victims are struggling mightily with their own burdens. I’ve talked to dozens of them, and each one is different. Some you can reach and help to liberate, help them to liberate themselves, and others you’re going to be in contact with for years to come. We do that systematically, and I think we do it very well.
All of that continues to advance, but there’s no [media] story about it. That doesn’t excuse the abuse of children by priests or bishops, nor does it excuse bishops looking the other way and not governing as they should. But it still is part of the story, and it’s not being told. I get letters all the time saying, ‘You’ve done nothing.’ While there’s always more to do, we have done something, and some considerable things.
Do you feel the last eight years have vindicated the policies the U.S. bishops adopted in 2002?
It’s hard to say. I think we’ve moved to remove the predators, and to do the other things I’ve said. In that sense, I think we got it right. Of course, mistakes were made even in doing that. In a different context, I think you could perhaps say that the regulations should be more nuanced, but that’s not possible now.
By ‘nuanced,’ do you mean the possibility of returning priests to ministry in some circumstances?
No, not putting them back. The rate of recidivism is high enough that it’s too dangerous to put anybody back into ministry. … A bishop has to be able to say, ‘I’m putting before you someone who is trustworthy.’ I believe that, and I can’t say that about anybody who has done this.
This has been very painful at times, especially when it’s a false accusation. In some circles, if you’re at all sympathetic to a priest, even one who’s been falsely accused, somehow you’re betraying victims. We’d like to say that we don’t want to betray victims, but nonetheless if it’s a false accusation – and there are false accusations – what happens to the priest? He doesn’t know if he can trust his bishop, he doesn’t know if he can trust anybody. Some of them are severely damaged by the process. We have to keep trying to ensure that predators are permanently removed, but in a way that also doesn’t harm people who are innocent.
As the crisis of 2010 unfolded, some bishops were highly critical of the media – almost as if you think they’re out to get you.
How much of the media attitude is part of deliberate decisions by individual reporters or writers, and how much is just a reflection of the cultural constant in this society, is hard for me to judge. People who want to believe that the Catholic church is essentially corrupt, that the bishops are all self-serving sycophants or are themselves guilty of dishonesty, now have something to point to and say, ‘See, we were right all along.’ Go back a hundred years … that was the story about the Catholic church then too. People who have that kind of view in their cultural genes are ready to believe the worst. … I don’t know that the media are any more out to get us now than they ever have been.
I don’t think it would be wise to imagine that we can control the media, or should try to control it. All we ask is that it not be controlled by other, sometimes unexamined sources, such as various groups out there. We have tried to be transparent in recent years, to a great degree. Other groups that haven’t done that self-scrutiny are sometimes given an automatic pass, or are given the benefit of the doubt about their credibility, in ways that we are not. It’s not just facts that are wrong, but there’s a meta-narrative, whether cultural or personal, that controls which facts are reported and who’s taken seriously.
At the grassroots, maybe the single most common criticism of the bishops’ response to the crisis goes like this: You’ve adopted tough accountability measures for priests, but not for yourselves. How do you respond to that?
First of all, there are the same rules of accountability when you look at the sexual acts. There are eight bishops who have been taken out of ministry in this country, not always for sexual activity with a minor, but because they have been guilty of serious sin and sometimes crime.
The larger question is, when you get beyond the sexual activity and into the governance issue, where’s the accountability for that? Looking around today, most bishops who knowingly appointed or transferred somebody judged to have been a sexual predator are already gone. I don’t know what more people would want to be done. Public disgrace, perhaps? Is that what’s at issue?
You know the response a lot of Americans would make – start by removing Cardinal Bernard Law from his cushy job in Rome.
I think the gesture of his resignation from Boston and his going into exile, which is where he is, should not be discounted.
Do you think there’s more work to be done on episcopal accountability?
Yes I do, although it’s very hard to know what shape it should take.
From the beginning, it would have helped if the bishops had an apt tool in the Code of Canon Law to deal with offenses. That’s being changed now, as the penal code is being revised. I remember that when I became a bishop and read through it, I thought, ‘This is not a very effective tool for governing, because it reduces the power to govern to the power to persuade.’ Unfortunately, there are times when the power to govern means the power to punish. The [post-Vatican II code] was created to go beyond the earlier code’s insistence on duties and obligations to talk also about rights. Of course, everybody applauded at the time, but now those rights have to be balanced against the tools a bishop is given to govern.
In terms of accountability, there is an increased insistence on mutual accountability, even if it’s informal. Whenever the province of Chicago meets, we always go around the table and say, ‘What are you doing about the sexual abuse of minors?’ There’s increased financial accountability. Bishops have to report to the metropolitan, who for his own archdiocese reports to the senior suffragan. So there are new instruments of accountability that are in place, a few formal and most informal.
Our problem is that in our kind of society, accountability that’s not legal is no accountability at all. We legalize everything. What we have [in the church] is instead the accountability of a family. Of course, family life has weakened in this society, so now even family relationships all go before courts. That, however, is not necessarily a good way to organize anything other than a country.
Do you believe that the strong position you took during the health care reform debate put down an important marker?
Yes, except that I don’t think the marker was new. It was always there. It’s just become clearer, perhaps. It hadn’t been conceded by everybody that the bishops have the right to judge the moral content of a piece of legislation.
As we go forward, we look for ways to cooperate. For example, I think the conversation with the Catholic Healthcare Association is moving along quite well. One question now is whether we might jointly approve, and ask Congress to approve, the Pitts-Lipinski Amendment that would put back the language of the Hyde Amendment into the bill, language that the Senate explicitly removed. Whether that amendment has a chance of being passing the Senate or being approved by the president I don’t know, but I think the fact that we would together this is where we want to be would help to repair the relationships that should exist between the bishops and the healthcare association.
Are you optimistic the CHA will join you on Pitts-Lipinski?
The conversations are good so far. … Informally, I talked recently with Sr. Carol Keehan. She had some good questions that she raised, but there was an openness there, as I read her, so I was encouraged.
You’re saying that if the CHA supports Pitts-Lipinski, it would help put the breach behind you?
It would help repair and strengthen the relationship. I don’t know that you ‘put behind’ any experience. We can’t ignore it, but we should learn from it. One way to show that we are learning from it would be joint support for the Pitts-Lipinski legislation.
[Note: In an early November address to the Illinois Catholic Hospital Association, Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that the association would support the Pitts-Lipinski legislation. Keehan told NCR that the association is working with the Pro-Life Committee of the bishops’ conference on language and other issues.]
Were you surprised that the bishops broke with the custom of automatically electing the vice-president as the next president?
Yes and no. I expected [the election] to be very close, but in my own thinking, I had assumed the custom would be followed. I talked about it once with Bishop Kicanas. The discussion was going on, and we both knew it. It was fed by many factors, which have been analyzed and discussed. Some interpreted it ideologically, but I don’t know there’s that much ideological difference. Some saw it in terms of different eras – new bishops and old bishops. Obviously, Bishop Kicanas has the capacity and the personality to be president of our conference, and so does Archbishop Dolan. Maybe some bishops simply thought, since both are worthy candidates, why should we be bound by a rule we didn’t make?
I’d like to add something about Bishop Kicanas, because sometimes he doesn’t get the credit he should for the work he did for the conference. He was really the one, behind the scenes, who saw to it that the work of the independent committees is now coordinated into the five priorities the bishops established. It was an often hidden administrative responsibility, but he worked extraordinarily hard for the conference, and it was of immense benefit for the church in this country.
Was the custom of the vice-president automatically becoming president an anachronism? Given the pace of change today, is it unrealistic to think you’ll know three years in advance the kind of leader you’ll need in, say, 2013?
Circumstances change so quickly now that three years can make a greater difference than would have been the case ten, twenty or thirty years ago. The office of president, by force of circumstance, has taken on a higher public profile than it once had. In that light, what you say makes good sense. Things can change a lot in three years, and you might want to think about who represents us publicly.
In a few days you’ll celebrate your 74th birthday, and I imagine thoughts of retirement have crossed your mind. Have you begun thinking about what you might like to do?
Yes, I have. One of the things I most miss as a bishop is hearing confessions. The conversations that take place in the sacrament of reconciliation are the most important conversations on the face of the planet. There you meet a soul in the presence of God ... I would very much like to make that ministry a large part of my life.
Beyond that, I like to study, and there are a lot of things I’d like to read I never have. That might be somewhat self-indulgent, but I’d try to read things I could share with others in some capacity, whether it’s preaching retreats or being in parishes. I love to be in the parishes on Sunday, and I hope I could continue to do that.
I’d also like to look back and reflect more on that question that has stayed with me for a long time: How can we be more effective as the Catholic church in this particular culture? It’s a culture that has demonic aspects to it, as all cultures do, but it has great virtues too. So, how can we continue to take up here the mission that Christ gives his church in every generation, which is to introduce people to their Savior? How can we do that more effectively? I would like to think about that and to write about that.
[John L. Allen, Jr. is NCR Senior Correspondent.]
Mr. Allen's excellent manner
Mr. Allen's excellent manner of opening up the conversation reveals what lies behind the scenes, and that is scary, very scary.
Catholic identity is transcendent love. These short sighted and secularly culturally driven bishops fail to lead us to transcend, but to constrict; thusly, to wither and to die.
I admit by extension I cannot transcend my own limited understanding of the jargon, and wonder what this means: "Whether George’s more evangelical imprint will have the same staying power as Bernardin’s moderate, social justice-oriented vision remains to be seen, . . ."
I found Cardinal Bernadin's leadership deeply rooted in the Gospel, and thus truly evangelical, as French and Spanish and Italian understand their similarly rooted words as evangelical. I therefore cannot find how George may be judged more evangelical in any way, perhaps even less so, judging by his rather crabby responses here, and the results of his sad tenure in office, and so believe it must be my misunderstanding of the term as implied in anglophone America.
I am concerned that Cardinal
I am concerned that Cardinal George is talking about governing - Jesus promised servants and persons who lead by example - the use of the term govern indicates that the bishops have forgotten that they are servants first - I also am not sure about the reluctance to punish - servants don't punish - shepherds don't punish they guide and they teach - rulers punish - Cardinal George nor any bishop is a ruler. If he is talking about governance in terms of governing priests then all bishops should resign given the lack of governance they demonstrated. If he talking about governing the faithful then I think he has forgotten that to govern you need the consent of the governed.
Thank you, John. I hope NCR
Thank you, John. I hope NCR will encourage more reporting and less commentary as time goes on. We all have our own opinions, but we don't always have the facts, so the temptation to demonize others is strong.
The Jay study notes 4300
The Jay study notes 4300 priests abused over 10,000 individuals and one Cardinal is in exile. Is this the concept Cardinal George is endorsing as an exercise of accountability?
Perhaps he is more intent to use the power of the episcopal office to control laity? This interpretation is significant: "...and he said bishops are more prepared to “take possession of their vocation,” not just as teachers and preachers, but as governors who exercise, however reluctantly, “the power to punish.”
Who will punish the bishops? No one, based on history.
If George is "the brain" of
If George is "the brain" of the American bishops that explains plenty about the intellectual level of that body.
George and his hierarchist
George and his hierarchist compadres indeed have a good press agent in John.
Excellent questions, John.
Excellent questions, John. Many of Cardinal George's responses (not answers in many instances) demonstrate why there is still a problem of understanding, accountability, transparency and honesty in our Church.
"How can we be more effective
"How can we be more effective in the Catholic Church..."
Answer:
1.Work for systemic change in the hierarchy starting from the Pope on down through the Roman Curia.
2.Get rid of all the human constructs which were made to enhance the power of clericalism.
3. Consider the laity as your partners and not as the "pray, pay, and obey sheep."
Words, words, words, words.
Words, words, words, words. Perfect example of what happens when two people who take themselves too seriously get together. But to publish them! Ye gods!
A good man but curiously out
A good man but curiously out of touch with the role of the laity. We are so used to hearing this kind of talk that we do not see the great divide. He was asked questions about so many areas where the laity should be consulted and involved. We still buy into the reasoning of individual hierarchs as though they were potentates or swamis who divine answers to complex problems. How can this be done? That is what faces all of us. No one suggests that we have a democratic referendum on all issues. But the time has come to reign in absolute authority. Putting 200 Bishops in a room, allowing for closed door sessions only perpetuates the problems. And to single out the leader and give him free reign to posture and defend only obfuscates the issues more.
Very encouraging.
Very encouraging.
Ho-Hum!!!
Ho-Hum!!!
MEDIEVAL ROMAN catholic...
MEDIEVAL ROMAN catholic...
does not fit or work within DEMOCRATIC CULTURES in
America, Europe, Australia, Scandinavia and wherever found.
It is NO LONGER a CHURCH because it disregards the PEOPLE OF GOD.
It is NO LONGER CATHOLIC or UNIVERSAL because it speaks only to
and thru a ROMAN, MEDIEVAL and DEAD COHORT.
Cardinal F. George IS SELF-INDULGENT in his desire to continue to
listen to confessions. CONFESSION happens daily in laymen's lives.
We constantly ask for forgiveness, are forgiven, and listen to the
personal faith witness of our fellow Children of God. The Cardinal
needs to get out and JUST LIVE AMONG...
DEAR LORD PLEASE REFORM THE catholic church
The people have been ready and prepared since Vatican II...
WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE ???
as governors who exercise,
as governors who exercise, however reluctantly, “the power to punish"....
You know the response a lot of Americans would make – start by removing Cardinal Bernard Law from his cushy job in Rome.
I think the gesture of his resignation from Boston and his going into exile, which is where he is, should not be discounted.
"should not be discounted"...... gosh these guys speak double speak , or just don't want to answer...
imo , it's all about power ....
It should be remembered that
It should be remembered that Cardinal George was handpicked for the post of Archbishop of Chicago by--you guessed it--Bernard Law. Indeed, Law still sits on the Congregation for Bishops.
WHAT A DAZZLING INTERVIEW!
WHAT A DAZZLING INTERVIEW! Cardinal George's intellectual brilliance reminds me of Pope Benedict's. Down through the years -- for my own intellectual and spiritual nourishment -- I've read everything I could by both Cardinal George and Pope Benedict. The barque of Peter is in the hands of good helmsmen.
The Cardinal says that
The Cardinal says that bishops need to "take possession of their vocation" by being "governors... who exercise the power to punish."
Spoken like the Grand Inquisitor. Christ exercised his power in the form of a servant. His authority was "self-emptying."
The faithful have already seen far too much of the "power to punich" emmanating from today's bishops. This is not Vatican II thinking. It smacks of the trumphalism of another age.
Sorry. But that's not what people look for in their supposed shepherd.
possession of their vocation,” not just as teachers and preachers, but as governors who exercise, however reluctantly, “the power to punish.”
This man's arrogance, myopia,
This man's arrogance, myopia, and self-righteous always amaze me. If this is the brains of the operation, all missions are doomed.
This has been very painful at
This has been very painful at times, especially when it’s a false accusation. In some circles, if you’re at all sympathetic to a priest, even one who’s been falsely accused, somehow you’re betraying victims. We’d like to say that we don’t want to betray victims, but nonetheless if it’s a false accusation – and there are false accusations – what happens to the priest? He doesn’t know if he can trust his bishop, he doesn’t know if he can trust anybody. Some of them are severely damaged by the process. We have to keep trying to ensure that predators are permanently removed, but in a way that also doesn’t harm people who are innocent.
Since when has Cardinal George been concerned about priests who were falsely accused? He demonstrates that the bishops are much more concerned about the "victims" than priests who MIGHT be innocent. When will he and his brothers realize that the bishops themselves opened the Church to liars and thieves rushing to accuse priests solely in order to gain millions of dollars belonging to parishioners. The bishops have betrayed their priests, our priests, and we parishioners don't like it. They have not done what God would do, rather they have done what cowards do: tuck their tales and throw our money to liars and their attorneys who dare state: "I've never seen anything like it. The Church asks for no proof!" And another attorney who says, "I'm going to sue the s--- out of the Catholic Church." And he is! Nothing in the past few years demonstrates any pain on the part of the bishops, "especially when it's a false accusation." That should make Cardinal George and his brothers very happy indeed!
There are eight bishops who
There are eight bishops who have been taken out of ministry in this country, not always for sexual activity with a minor, but because they have been guilty of serious sin and sometimes crime.
Could you give us the names of the eight bishops?
A bad interview. You failed
A bad interview. You failed to ask questions about the wholesale leaving of Catholics from our faith. You really punted on the question of bishop's accountability. You didn't push him on the, by now, jejune claim that it's the press, it's the press that is at fault. You didn't really question him on how the church looks in this country after the recent debacles in Europe. How the Pope looks after the still murky dealings he had in Germany.
George is a man who gives on quarter. This is a man who, from this interview, is still the same old George. He must have felt good after this. And, I'm sorry to say John Allen, you should feel bad. He took you. It would have been better if a dreaded reporter from the NY Times had interviewed George.
A great interview.
A great interview. Unfortunately, cardinal George is still thinking in terms of initiatives taken by the Church hierarchy themselves. That model for governance of the future, from what we've learned over the decades, doesn't cut it any more. The feudal governor administering a diverse set of issues within the episcopal bureaucracy (a mini version of the Vatican) needs to be dumped.
The diverse administrative duties of the local bishop need to be dispersed and the teaching office brought back loud and clear. Something tells me cardinal George actually knows this and privately would like to see it happen.
National synods need to break up these homongous archdioceses and dioceses into more governable territories. Increase the number of bishops five-fold.
With an emphasis upon clerical personnel selection and financial decision-making vested in the laity, but with the input and full cooperation of the bishop and his clergy. Mandatory vestries or lay boards and presbyteral councils are a must. No decision in the parish or diocese should be made without consultation starting in such bodies.
Enough of aging paper pushers far away in Rome secretly propping up the good old boy's club. We've had enough of secrecy and private corruption.
Reform of the Church is too important to be left to the episcopate alone. It must start and receive it's impetus from invigorated and committed Pew Dwellers.
While I am pleasantly
While I am pleasantly surprised by most of the answers, there are a few that seem less than transparent, like promoting Cardinal Bernard Law to Rome was a punishment. One, regarding the hypothesis regarding how bishops thought about the election of the new president of USCCB: "Maybe some bishops simply thought, since both are worthy candidates, why should we be bound by a rule we didn’t make?" made me smile. Can anyone imagine the response from the bishops if someone made the same statement about the rules of the Church? Like, why should I be married in a church instead of outside in God's creation? Just a smile.
Over 70
" ‘This is not a very
" ‘This is not a very effective tool for governing, because it reduces the power to govern to the power to persuade.’ Unfortunately, there are times when the power to govern means the power to punish. The [post-Vatican II code] was created to go beyond the earlier code’s insistence on duties and obligations to talk also about rights. Of course, everybody applauded at the time, but now those rights have to be balanced against the tools a bishop is given to govern. " What a pompous, insular, clueless statement. Perhaps Cardinal George does not know that many Catholics are not interested in the hierarchy's power to punish, simply b/c they do not recognize it. We are Catholics regardless of what bishops think or proclaim. Perhaps he's thinking of doling out punishment to nuns for daring to support the Health Care Reform Bill. He really shouldn't go there. The sisters have way more credibility than the bishops in almost everything to do with human needs. As to his responses regarding the sexual abuse crisis, he makes no apologies, gives no hint that he has any insight into its causes and how it has affected the lives of victims and how the laity feel about the total unconcern of the bishops in this matter. If the Boston Globe hadn't followed this story relentlessly, it would still be swept under the rugs of the various chanceries around the country and the world. It is reassuring, however, to know that he is 74 and will have to submit his resignation to Rome. Truly depressing to have to face the fact that this self-serving, narcissitic leadership is what we have in one of the largest dioceses of the United States.
Our culture has demonic
Our culture has demonic aspects as do all cultures? That is a huge generalization- what does Bishop George mean? He needs to be more specific about what he means and what he intends to do about it.
Bishops have never been
Bishops have never been reluctant to punish as per "George said debates over Catholic identity these days often pivot on the authority of the bishop – and he said bishops are more prepared to “take possession of their vocation,” not just as teachers and preachers, but as governors who exercise, however reluctantly, “the power to punish.”
This would be a grave mistake. The truth is that bishops no longer effectively have that kind of power and Catholics no longer will accept the role of 'child' and cede the role of 'parent' to the bishop. Those days are behind us for good.
Thank God.
I think Francis George
I think Francis George expresses my feelings about the institutional church perfectly when he says that there are those of us who believe that it is corrupt. I didn't always believe the hierarchy was corrupt, but I do now for a myriad of reasons.
I am always puzzled by the
I am always puzzled by the reference to the period of 1973 to 1986 as the time-frame within which "most of the abuse occurred". What is the source of this assessment? Given the secrecy surrounding child sex abuse in the Church among religious and clergy, I find it odd that this conclusion can be drawn. If one is referring to reported cases that are on file and have been disclosed through quasi-judicial processes, then I would accept that this may be true.
The reason why this issue is of some significance is because both the Vatican and, I presume, the US bishops draw the conclusion that it was post-Vatican II laxity that contributed to the crisis. I'm very doubtful about this. Pope Benedict XVI made more or less the same point in his Letter to Irish Catholics. As a religious in Ireland I can assert with some confidence the prevailing view among Irish religious that most of the abuse occurred at a time when Vatican II had the least impact, the time of traditional practices, devotions, unquestioning loyalty, obedience, etc.
If NCR could shed some light on this, it would be helpful.
The II Vatican Council shaped
The II Vatican Council shaped my Catholicism. I was 20 then. I have been so thankful for the liberty, responsibility, liturgy it opened for the community of the Church. When these suspicions about the Council appear, supposed or real, the question of catholic identity turns into a definition, not a quest.
Mr. Allen tells us that
Mr. Allen tells us that Cardinal George is "the brain" of the USCCB... the "thinker-in-chief". That explains a lot.
.
The prelates' cerebral echo chamber still doesn't 'get it' — trust is everything in any relationship. Once forfeited, credibility is zilch. Trust is EARNED over time.
.
The cardinal and his bench of bishops have made it clear during the past few years that (in their world) merely occupying the apostolic office grants them a certain exceptionalism and the right to demand obedience to their every dictate... to "govern" and to "punish". Good luck rebuilding trust with that attitude. Everything continues to be all about taking care of themselves and showcasing their authority. We already know the end result of that.
.
The Lord of the Church spoke of sheep knowing the voice of a true shepherd and will follow him, but they won't follow a stranger. Rather than being so defensive, perhaps the hierarchs should reflect on the model of the Good Shepherd himself.
.
Is it revealing -- or merely
Is it revealing -- or merely an accident -- that nowhere in this article, which spends so much time looking at the role of the bishops, does the word "pastoral" appear? "Punish," on the other hand, is right there.
Might this be connected somehow with George's concerns about confusion around the nature and responsibilities of the bishops for governance? He does indeed call for much more "conversation" on the subject; but what will he and his colleagues do to ensure that there is a real conversation, rather than the usual series of top-down proclamations, masquerading as "teaching"?
I pray that somehow this man
I pray that somehow this man and others in the hierarchy can get beyond their defensiveness. It blinds them. They truly don't seem to understand. It is not just the people that always thought the hierarchy was corrupt that are disillusioned. It is people like me that grew up thinking they were next to God who now think they are hopelessly lost in a defensive circle of bishops, who are trying to find fault elsewhere. In today's New York Times is an article about Latinos turning to Islam, in part due to a disillusionment with the catholic clergy. I pray that they can look at the problem and see the problem is us. Only then can we move ahead in love and unity.
Joe McLaughlin
From the comments in this
From the comments in this conversation with Cardinal Francis George it is clear that he is the "thinker", the intellectual "brain" of the U. S. Bishops but he lacks that "vison thing" as the 1st President Bush once said. Cardinal George is a good company man. He wants to have the ability to govern with the "power to punish". Hopefully he is talking about governing the bishops with that power and not the laity. I would also like to understand what he meant by "governing more clearly ?" Transparency, accountability and responsibility ?
As to his remarks about the sexual abuse crisis I have two comments. The Cardinal's remark about the need for having "an apt tool in the Code of Canon Law" to handle the crime of clerical sexual abuse makes me shake my head. You don't need "an apt tool" except your own personal conscience to do the right thing when there is "credible" sexual abuse of a minor child. My second comment relates to the Cardinal's remark about the "exile" of Cardinal Law. That's one hell of a cushy exile.
Beautifl. Amen
Beautifl. Amen
Disappointing interview. With
Disappointing interview. With all of the numbers decreasing that should be increasing: Catholic marriages,people who think abortion is not OK etc etc. This is really a disappointing view on Catholic education in the US.
As usual John, great article.
As usual John, great article. It's evident Cardinal George is a good man and thoughtful leader. We wish him well............
I think that we SHOULD
I think that we SHOULD discount "the gesture of (Law's FORCED) resignation from Boston" and his going to a cushy, high-profile position in Rome where he is safe from the risk of further legal depositions. Regretfully, he is still a functioning cardinal; he is NOT in exile. His continuance as cardinal and arch-priest is public recognition that neither the pope nor the vatican hierarchy have adequately reflected on the damage done by Law. The old boys club still takes care of it's own . . . .
Cardinal George asserts that
Cardinal George asserts that more goverance is needed by the bishops. From what I have read, the bishops did a great job of governing by covering up and attacking the sexual abuse victims??????
He is wrong about Cardinal Law. Cardinal Law was not exiled, but was protected from prosecution by being moved to the sovereign state in the Vatican. If he had to resign and pay back all the wealth he acquired as a covering up bishop, it might show that the church fathers are interested in justice and govering.
As long as Cardinal George is more interested in the few falsely accused priets, the numerous present and past victims of clerical sexual abuse will not obviously be a concern to the Cardinal.
Where does Cardinal George
Where does Cardinal George find a mandate for bishops to be "governors who exercise ... the power to punish?" Certainly not in Christ's command to His Apostles at the Last Supper: "I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. ... no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than him who sent him." (John 13:35-36). Nor is it in Paul's description of what Christ did: "He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross." (Phil.2:5-8).
The true definition of the bishop's role in the Church is service and leadership (like the "good shepherd" who leads out his flock), a role certainly absent in many recent highly publicised statements and actions by bishops, not only in America. In spite of Cardinal George's opinion to the contrary, most Catholics seek clear moral principles on which to base their decisions not moral micromanaging by the hierarchy.
The Church oc Christ calls for pastoral leadership, not juridical and punitive authority.
Why is the Catholic Church
Why is the Catholic Church having so much of hard time stopping sexual abuse of children and women. Let us not ignore what has been the unsaid fact that as much as 40% of the Nuns are raped and or sexually used and abused by the Priests and Bishops. All the Pope seems to care about is protecting the Church and hell with the abused.
This is an interesting review
This is an interesting review of an interview with Cardinal George.
One issue dear to my heart, that of "Catholic identity", has been around awhile, both in use and abuse, in the USA and globally (From personal experience and as witness I know Cardinal Cody wielded it as a hammer much as other Ordinaries are using it elsewhere today). I wonder what Cardinal George meant when he state that "divergences in [its]understanding have been clarified". I also wonder why he only mentioned the part of "Catholic identity" belonging to the role of Bishops in the juridical church. Is not the role of the rest of the People of God also part of "Catholic identity"? Is this one of the "divergences" that "have been clarified"? If so, I fail to see how or by whom.
I wholeheartedly concur with the Cardinal when he states that we "have to look @ ... about how the Bishops participate in the public conversation that lead to political choices." In fact in my opinion, "classical moral theology" needs new light as well. I wonder: were the allusions to "pragmatic culture" and "conclusions" meant for his fellows in the USCCB as well as for the rest of us?
The segment on media reportage ended: "...there's a meta-narrative...that controls which facts are reported and who's taken seriously." In the "vulgate" I can only respond: "Duh!". If there is one thing true and obvious about what we term "media" it's this statement. Fox News has its meta-narrative; so does CNN, Al Jazeera, Vatican Radio, EWTN, WALL ST JOURNAL, TIME, SIRIUS radio, THE NEW WORLD, SUNDAY VISITOR, THE WANDERER, the local/national TV news channels etc, etc. Part of the battle cry of what we call "The Tea Party" had to do with media's meta-narrative(s). And they are all correct!
I assume the problem of "who's taken seriously" is to be understood in context of U.S. Bishops vs a vs __?__. Sometimes it's very difficult to take seriously some things that should be when, in the eyes of many of whomever makes up one or other group of the __?__, U.S. Bishops (by & large) have lost credibility. To regain credibility does include leadership by governance, but even more it depends on pastoral servant leadership - & real reconciling.
As a lifelong Catholic who
As a lifelong Catholic who loves the Church but was hurt and embarrassed by the sexual abuse crisis, this was encouraging to me.
I am glad that Cardinal George would like to return to one-on-one ministry and misses the interaction with the faithful. I hope he finds a satisfying and fulfilling ministry in retirement.
While I have some questions
While I have some questions about the over-all operation and effectiveness of the USCCB in general...and have been very disappointed in particular as to the current level of political involvment by the group, I found this interview with Cardinal George most interesting and quite enlightening. I woud like to see the Bishops role as Shepherd to the flock more emphasized as their political influence would be more effective in this capacity instead of making major pronouncements to the media...who nine times out of ten get it wrong anyway. Thanks for this interview!
I reading Cardinal George's
I reading Cardinal George's comments, I feel a great lack of compassion and spirituality coming from his words. He states "It has been very painful at times, especially when its been a false accusation. Is THAT the most painful part of the savage abuse of many children? That some priests might be temporarily falsely accused? As usual, the sympathy is for themselves first, the bureaucracy second, and the victims last. His answer about Cardinal Law was flip and very inadequate. He is not just in a cushy job but a powerful one, that appoints American Bishops. (No possibility of payback to the American laity there?? ) His reason for "exile"?? - running from the law (supeona)in Boston. George's coldness reflects little of the Gospel humility, truth and warm loving service that Jesus lived so clearly and simply. It was very business-like. Good for a CEO but sad for a shepherd.
I wish Cardinal George had
I wish Cardinal George had been a bit more forthcoming. For example, characterizing Cardinal Law as being in exile is, to put it charitably, misleading. Having a comfortable sinecure is not exile.
Secondly, the focus on governance is not credible until we hear public criticism of those bishops who covered up or failed to stop abuse, public criticism by the bishops that is. Connected to that is the fact that we heard nothing in public by American bishops when an official in Rome spoke about sexual abuse and the support of the ordination of women as if there were some connection between them. Where was the outrage from the bishops?
If the bishops are going to claim powers of governance understood as powers to punish, what processes will they put in place that will honor their brothers and sisters in Christ? Governance is also protection as well as punishment. The failure in governance was much more a failure to protect than a failure to punish. The way in which the Cardinal frames this question is itself a sign of the continuing problem facing the church.
I have some concerns about
I have some concerns about some of Cardinal George’s statements:
“I don’t think it would be wise to imagine that we can control the media, or should try to control it. All we ask is that it not be controlled by other, sometimes unexamined sources, such as various groups out there. We have tried to be transparent in recent years, to a great degree. Other groups that haven’t done that self-scrutiny are sometimes given an automatic pass, or are given the benefit of the doubt about their credibility, in ways that we are not. It’s not just facts that are wrong, but there’s a meta-narrative, whether cultural or personal, that controls which facts are reported and who’s taken seriously”
Who are the other, unexamined sources, such as various groups out there? This kind of vague accusation makes it sound as if Cardinal George is chanelling Glenn Beck or Mel Gibson.
“In terms of accountability, there is an increased insistence on mutual accountability, even if it’s informal. Whenever the province of Chicago meets, we always go around the table and say, ‘What are you doing about the sexual abuse of minors?’ There’s increased financial accountability. Bishops have to report to the metropolitan, who for his own archdiocese reports to the senior suffragan. So there are new instruments of accountability that are in place, a few formal and most informal.
Our problem is that in our kind of society, accountability that’s not legal is no accountability at all. We legalize everything. What we have [in the church] is instead the accountability of a family.”
What Cardinal George calls informal accountability is what most people call the Old Boy Network, and we saw how it worked in Boston. That’s why the laity, who are excluded from the OBN, dont’t trust it. The bishops and priests are like members of a street gang who always seem to be around when something bad happens; no one trusts any of them when they claim innocence. I’m not aware of families with the kind of accountability he talks about, except the Sopranas and the Addams Family.
John, Your
John,
Your expression,"evangelical imprint," is a gross misnomer. Evangelism is spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. The leadership style of Cardinal George and many, many other American bishops is hardly evangelical. Their is a leadership by fiat. That's not evangelical by any stretch of the imagination.
Cardinal George..."There’s increased financial accountability. Bishops have to report to the metropolitan, who for his own archdiocese reports to the senior suffragan. So there are new instruments of accountability that are in place, a few formal and most informal." You've got to be kidding. Name an American bishop, who was removed from office by any instrument of accountability. Cardinal Law going "into exile?" That's laughable. He resigned because he was called out by the courageous action of his priests and the reportage of the secular press, not by any instrument of accountability.
Cardina George..."Looking around today, most bishops who knowingly appointed or transferred somebody judged to have been a sexual predator are already gone. I don’t know what more people would want to be done." Hah! Cardinal George, within the last 5 years knowingly allowed a priest which your own appointees dtermined to had sexually abused young boys to continue to minister as a pastor.
Mr. Allen, you need to stop drinking the Cardinal George Kool Aid. You refer to him as the intellectual leader of the USCCB. If that is true, what a sad commentary on the American episcopate. Articulate he is. ButI can't help but think of him as a glib, mealy mouth snake oil salesman.
Dear Mr Allen, great
Dear Mr Allen, great interview. Thank you for your courage to try to pry out a response reading bishops accountability. Cardinal George's answers were less then forthcoming. His answer regarding Cardinal Law was rather callous. His criticism of the press coverage of the European abuse scandals is bizarre and self serving, where is the sense of outrage? His insistence that the church is a “family’, and bishops wise know it all fathers, that can punish, does not hold water, based on his responses. A church governance based on honesty and increased checks and balances is needed, it seems to me.
The Cardinal is absolutely
The Cardinal is absolutely not telling the truth when he says most of the 111 bishops who protected pederast priests are gone. At least 1/3 remain in power today. Check bishopaccountability.org
The ones that left were not made to leave, but merely retired, and they still have influence and honor in retirement.
And while some bishops have been removed due to sexual and other crimes and sins, it is completely open knowledge that NOW, even high level U.S. clerics have a predilection for boys and still in power and/or being honored. They might not go after altar boys or seminarians any more but they still have enough money to pay for boy prostitutes.
His arrogance about victims still needing to be "liberated" speaks volumes about his refusal to accept what they are saying: there is no forgiveness without due justice which will in turn protect children now and in the future.
And, by the way, not keeping a pederast priest in active ministry still keeps him in a collar and with the respect and aura that attracts and gains access to children, no matter how many times a month some "supervisor" quizzes him about what bars he went to last weekend. Ask the good cardinal how many child rapists are being "supervised."
The hierarchy can keep obfuscating and stalling until all the bishops who are criminally complicit age out of office, but the facts remain. These same men put their proteges in office behind them. Nothing has changed.
The Tucson decision was an
The Tucson decision was an example of how bishops who are trained in their ehads and live there are so out of touch with the feeling, fully human level of where life is lived. Applying Vatican directives and the bishops' own guidelines, the very tough decision made by that hospital baord showed the best decision was made which sadly led to the death but not the deliberate murder or directly intentional killing of the baby.
I start my reaction to His Eminence's internview by making the comparison to his answers. No real pastoral feel for the whole Church. What about the millions who walked away because they are not fed- not those who make an excuse to leave? What about the understanding of marriage and re-marriage and exclusion from communion for many who decide to go to the Methodist or Episcopal Church? What about taking the extermist views that a priest accused of abuse who is innocent is talked of with no compassion in the same sentece as protecting the Church and saving others from recidivism. All were tarred with the same brush, one minor violation is placed in the same scale as the real sick offenders. He even seems to not realize that the disease of attraction to children or adolescents does not fit all abuse of children by every bishop and priest who was accused even if guilty of passing minor violations. The bishops do need more well-trained leaders in the fields of theology and Church law as some are. But they all need a healthy dose of being exposed to the real world of living human beings who are all flawed as the bishops are also. They need to show by their lifestyle, practice and pastoral concern that Jesus is at work in their Chanceries. Not the Jesus who cussed out the Pharieees for obstructionism and hypocrisy. Instead the Jesus of the Prodigan Son , the woman taken in adutery who was freed because the hypocrites who wanted to stone her were faced with their sins. The Jesus who re-instated Peter the cursing lying denier of Jesus at His Trial as Shepherd of the Flock in John 21. Dropping the secular government titles of Eminence and Excellecy and Lordship and naming priests "My Lord" as in "Monsignor" would be one great way to show they are FATHERS and not modern-day medieval monarchs who re-wrote canon law at Dallas in 2001 and mow it down when it gets in their way in practice. There are exaggerated and unfair criticisms of the Church as being intrinsically corrupt which is as false as saying that Congress is intri nsically corrupt. But there are people looking in who can tell the bishops and their Conferences and their moral and canonical experts that they are in need of a healthy dose of conversion, and of Jesus' compassionate pastoral care for flesh and blood people who are not living in a world of dis-embodied spirits.
Cardinal George has long been
Cardinal George has long been one of my heros. I do wish that he and the Bishops would focus less on methods of punishment and accountability and measure Bishops by such issues as:
a. What has the Bishop done to educate the young
b. to reduce the incidence of abortion among Catholics
c. to promote marriage
d. to ease the problems of poverty
e. to promote stewarship
These are among the efforts of the Apostles and Church Fathers.
The bishops all dodge the
The bishops all dodge the question of their responsibility to speak out against war. "Right to Life" should include the 100,000 people killed in the unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and drone strikes in Pakistan. The UD church spports the US wars by providing chaplains and encouraging militarism, through such things as ROTC at Cathoic schools. The Society of Friends, whose young people do not see the use of guns as "Christ-like" are in my opinion much closer to Christ than we Catholics are.
It is suspicious that when
It is suspicious that when Bishop Skylstad of Spokane, WA was the President, he declared Bankrupcy for the Spokane Diocese. When Cardinal Leveda was Bishop of Portland, Oregon, he declared Bankruptcy. Now he has been elevated within the Vatican to being in charge of the clergy sexual abuse. Now that Bishop Timothy Dolan is President, the Milwaukee Diocese has declared bankruptcy (he was formerly in Milwaukee).
Cardinal George managed to keep Chicago solvent while he was President. Is this an accomplishment?
"The power to punish!" WHAT?
"The power to punish!" WHAT? Are we children? George may be the intellectual leader of the Bishops but he's an idiot. He, and the rest of the Bishops, are not the only "defenders of the faith" or teachers of the faith. Every Catholic, in some fashion, has that same function and many, who are not Bishops, do it better than they do. At our parish he held up his ring and said "I have the power" and continued to say, if you don't like it, you can leave. He would prefer a smaller more loyal church. He is getting that church. But then, why is the Archdiocese spending millions of dollars on television ads asking people to come back home to the Catholic Church. IDIOT!
Notice how every phrase is
Notice how every phrase is laced with "Catholic" when "Roman Catholic" is what is meant.
There are a lot of people who are Catholic, but not Roman. This flagrant hijacking of a term is one of the indicators of the empire mentality. As the old jokes go about the residents of heaven, the Roman Catholics think they are the only ones here, and that's part of the problem since there are better ways to be authentically "Catholic" than being "Roman Catholic".
"If bishops had governed more
"If bishops had governed more clearly between 1973 and 1986, when statistics tell us most of the abuse took place ..."
For a guy with a reputation for smarts, you have to wonder about the cluelessness of this statement.
If he's referring to the Jay Study, he should know that the main reason the statistics appear to bear this trend out is because of all the victims who died before the Jay researchers talked to them or studied their claims.
In the current climate, I'd be very cautious about touting the "power to punish." Lay people can ignore bishops, celebrate the sacraments as they please, and there is no policing body available to enforce. Cardinal George would find episcopal credibility eroding even further. He shouldn't dismiss the power to persuade very easily. It sure worked for Jesus. Maybe the wrong guys are being surfaced for episcopal ministry.
I appreciate John Allen's inside and insights, but if he asked the questions of the archbishop I'd like to see asked, he might never get another chat with a bishop.
This article was published on
This article was published on Friday. This is Monday and no comments!
Is it normal?
So the good cardinal says
So the good cardinal says that "bishops are more prepared to 'take possession of their vocation', not just as teachers and preachers, but as governors who exercise, however reluctantly, 'the power to punish'."
Well, lordy-lordy, why am I not surprised by this guy's remarks???
Of course our "JPII" bishops are "more prepared" to "take possession [of] the power to punish". They stand on their episcopal pedestals, by God, and we're all gonna' risk our eternal salvation if we tell these fellas they're full of it!!!
Me thinks this guy is speaking like a PhD political philosopher.
(o, wait, that's what he is! he just fergets he ain't in the classroom right now and givin' out A's, B's, C's, D's --- and F's. shudder the thought!)
"Power to punish"???
What a joke!!!
"Teach and preach"???
Umm, nope.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Please support the gay war
Please support the gay war against heterosexual power. Extinguish hetrosexual people both social and economicaly. Tell kids to se us as the best leaders. We have great influence in media and will change the agenda to put down the heterosexual sociaty. Never buy products or services from heterosexuals (worked fine in the village in the 70th, we banished the hetros, now the method is running at Södermalm Stockholm).
Christianity and all religions are heterosexual constructions and neds to be changed to benefit homosexual supremacy. Help christian homosexuals to infiltrate and tear down the historical and todays christianity + other religions.
Your brain is a weapon, find out how you can be a plague in the enemys life - psychic violence is the response to those who dislike us. +-warning-+ Our unprovoked attack will make them response with physical violence.
Make the religious people hesitate their beliefs, say their god and profets are gay, bring a yes-sayer with you (always) standing on your side, makes it easyer to be convincing. Practice speach with confidence, practice to say a convincing "no" if somebody understand that the queer-theory is a facistic ideology.
Make the gay network global "you must keep networking". The biggest social network, us, that only consume each others services and products wins (they who doesnt belong to the network will consume our networks products and services and concentrate money to the our network, without knowing it they drain their own economy). If you suspect somebody will hit you when you use psycical violence, just say "nice shirt" then he cant hit you (have you been "niceshirted").
Every hetrosexual shall have problems every day, small problems stacking up. Make their day sour.
Always bring a yes-sayer that stand next to you, pay the yes-sayer whit benefits from the gay network, free clothes, free food, easyer economical support from social insurences.
Use social media to destroy hetrosexual peoples life.
Act against the enemy like a robot - a gaybot, show love only to your brothers.
Backstab the enemy with bad rumors , make the political correct individ hate your enemy.
God bless you!
Very Sad. As a reasonably
Very Sad. As a reasonably prominent Lesbian activist myself, I want to assure people here that none of the ideas put forward by Tom are in any way embraced by mainstream activists, more than a few of whom identify as Catholic.
He seems more like a troll trying to incite an anti-LGBT response
As far as the Catholic Church, they are certainly entitled to their viewpoint and to make the rules as far as their own followers. My only objection comes when they try to legislate their beliefs into law given that there are Christian and other faiths that disagree with the Church on certain issues.
I left the church, in part
I left the church, in part over the scandal. In reading Cdl. George's words, all I can say is "wow." Clearly this guy equates "church" with bishops. But he misses the point of frustration for the rest of us. Who CARES what "the church" promises, if those promises skip over the real issue: accountability? He's upset that the media is missing "the story" here: how much good the church is doing in this area. He clearly does not understand that as long as the church allows bishops to do the kinds of things we saw, and to remain in power, a message is being sent that all the rest of this is window dressing. He's bemoaning the fact that the media isn't taking the head fake.
Reading his words convinces me that I made the right choice in leaving when I did.
Surprised there has been no
Surprised there has been no comment on this piece -- especially since he was
directly asked about consequences for bishops and failed to mention his own
failures that possibly merited jail time.
Thank you for this interview,
Thank you for this interview, however, I was disappointed in Mr. Allan's lack of challenging Bishop George more aggressively. Bishop George continues to indicate the media as the enemy when,gratefully. the media exposed the horrific abuse problem in the church. Second, Bishop George and all the leadership of the church continues to ignore the needs and intelligence of we laity by never inviting us into conversations about sexuality, family life, birth control, etc. I apologize for saying "never" as I"m sure thy have a "control groups" they bring together for discussion, but I don't trust they really listen.
A faithful, active Catholic.
John Allen's pseudo-profound
John Allen's pseudo-profound interview with George tells us as much about Allen's acuity as George's. http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/picking-brain-us-bishops-...
Allen didn't get it either. It's another one of Allen’s “exclusive” conversations in the “sit down” puff piece mode.
Gene Kennedy’s article performs a huge service in exposing the vacuous nature of what Allen cites as the worthwhile picking of George’s brain. Slim pickings naturally left unchallenged.
And if the USCCB membership considers George a leading intellectual light, well then, enough said.
Here is an example of George’s ethical leadership to accompany Kennedy’s review of his intellectual firepower. It recounts Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke’s telling George, “You lied to me.”
"Anne Burke will always remember one session out-of-town with a nationally famous bishop who gave her complete assurance that all instances of sexual hanky-panky were brought to a dead halt in his diocese.
The next morning she opened a newspaper and found that the bishop was on the front page, having welcomed a priest-sexual predator as a house guest. (See http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2003_03_01_ChicagoSunTimes_Georg
eDidnt_Kenneth_J_Martin_1.htm where the bishop is identified as George)
She called the bishop. “Yesterday you assured me that all matters involving the diocese had been cleaned up,” she said. “You know, you lied to me, didn’t you?”
He said the priest was being used for a theological research job.
She continued, “You lied to me, didn’t you.”
“No, I didn’t.”
“Well, the priest you hired was convicted.”
“No he wasn’t.”
“Really?”
“He pled guilty. That’s what happened.”
“Same thing.”
“Well, not exactly-pleading guilty is not the same as being tried and found guilty.”
Burke smiled at that effort, at the futile attempt to apply theological hair-splitting to the law. It may make it in a university theological seminar but not in a courtroom.
“Why did he try to snow me?” she said to this reporter. “Did he think he could get away with it because - well, he didn’t.” (See full text of three interviews that appeared in The Wanderer as posted on www.tomroeser.com in August 2006.)
We must all remember that the
We must all remember that the USCCB, State Bishop's Conferences, and individual Cardinals/Bishops are not the Magisterium of the Church.
For accurate teachings of the Magisterium that all Catholics are REQUIRED to adhere to, read the "CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition" (dark green cover), first printed in the USA in March 2000 with the copyright held by the Holy See.
This is the only catechism from the Magisterium.
No Catholic home should be without a CCC in this day of secularism and relativism. And to insure that you are getting the CORRECT teachings of the Church rather than an individual's personal beliefs.
For additional information ie Canon Code etc., one can always check the "VATICAN" web site.
Some times some Bishops step outside the boundaries of the teachings of the Church, but you will not know if you do not reference the CCC.
Hold on, there Ed! I think
Hold on, there Ed! I think you are putting it too strongly. Not every item taught in the Magisterium is “Ex Cathedra” (from the chair of Peter) and is therefore considered infallible. There are different levels of truth in the Magisterium. Some items are open to an individual Catholic's on interpretation, but he must give the teaching of the Church due consideration. One glaring example that is in the present Magisterium is birth control. A Catholic is free to disagree with this teaching and not be guilty of sin.
Post new comment