The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionPope's reluctance to impose American way not a shocker
by John L Allen Jr on Jul. 16, 2010
A July 9 editorial in The New York Times called upon Pope Benedict XVI to make the American bishops’ “zero tolerance” approach to sexual abuse binding on the worldwide Catholic church. In principle that’s a perfectly reasonable idea, especially since Vatican spokespersons routinely invoke the pope’s defense of the tough American rules as proof that he gets it.
Yet the editorial also used the word “shocking” to describe the fact that eight years after the American policies were developed, the pontiff has not yet imposed them on the rest of the world. That’s where people who know the lay of the land in the church will probably balk, because aside from the fact that Rome has an evolutionary sense of time (in which eight years seems a nanosecond), there are three other reasons why this is hardly a shocker.
Unpacking those reasons may shed light not only on the sexual abuse crisis, but also the complexities of setting policy in a global church -- one in which the 67 million Catholics in the United States represent just six percent of the total Catholic population of almost 1.2 billion, meaning that 94 percent of Catholics in the world don’t automatically see things through American eyes.
First, it’s a well-known fact of Catholic life that the “one strike and you’re out” rule at the heart of the American norms -- automatic removal from ministry for life for even one act of sexual abuse against a minor -- plays to mixed reviews, at best, around the global church. That’s not because the rest of the Catholic world is necessarily soft on abuse, but because some bishops and canon lawyers regard the “one strike” policy as a distortion of the church’s legal tradition. Over the centuries, they argue, canon law has resisted “one size fits all” penalties, preferring to leave discretion in the hands of judges to make the punishment fit the crime.
To illustrate the point, critics sometimes put things this way: There’s a world of difference between a priest who’s a serial rapist of pre-pubescent children, and a priest who had a consensual encounter with a teenager 20 years ago. Policies that ignore or downplay such distinctions, they argue, risk remedying one injustice with another.
The statute of limitations is another bone of contention. Canonists debate what it used to be, but everyone knows that today, the Vatican’s willingness to waive any time limit is heavily influenced by the American experience. That, too, draws fire from critics, who see it as a violation of due process of law. Statutes of limitations are there for a reason, they argue -- to protect the integrity of evidence, to ensure that justice is swift, and so on.
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.
One can debate those points, but they reflect the views of many canon lawyers, religious superiors and bishops around the world. It’s not clear how effective it would be for the pope to impose a policy by fiat, when the officials who would have to enforce it harbor such reservations. In ecclesiological terms, one could also argue that it would violate the principle of collegiality, or shared decision-making, for the pope to decree a new law in the absence of a consensus among bishops and canonists. (As a footnote, critics these days sometimes seem to be demanding an imperial papacy ... calling to mind the old bit of advice, “Be careful what you wish for.”)
Second, there are aspects of what’s come to be known as the “American approach” which might not translate well in every corner of the world. Take, for example, cooperation with the police and other civil authorities. For Americans and Western Europeans -- where the rule of law holds, and the police play fair -- such a policy seems like a no-brainer, not to mention a long-overdue correction to the notion that the church is above the law.
Things look different, however, in a place such as Ukraine. There, a new pro-Russian government is reviving Soviet methods for pressuring the Greek Catholic Church, the largest Eastern rite Catholic church in the world and arguably Ukraine’s most important engine for democratic reform. Among other things, the successor to the KGB has recently been sniffing around the Catholic University in Lviv, dropping in on the rector and making ominous calls to staff on their cell phones (calls of the “we know where you live” variety).
Recently I asked a few figures in the Greek Catholic church what a requirement of automatic compliance with every police probe would mean in their environment today. Typically, I got a one-word answer: “Suicide.”
Ukraine’s situation illustrates a broader point. Policies which seem self-evident in one part of the world, and under one set of historical circumstances, can look very different when the context changes. (Recall that Benedict XVI’s choice in 2007 to become the Archbishop of Warsaw, Stanislaw Wielgus, was forced to quit in disgrace when it emerged that he had collaborated with Poland’s Soviet-era secret police. In that milieu, the guys who refused to play ball are now seen as heroes, while those who cooperated are pariahs.)
Third, anyone who has spent much time travelling around the Catholic world knows the love/hate dynamic that often defines reactions to the American church. On the one hand, Catholics elsewhere admire the dynamism, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the resources of American Catholicism; on the other, they often sense that Americans are a bit too eager to swoop in and tell the rest of the world how things ought to be done, sometimes with little understanding of the local situation.
In that context, anything that looks like shoving the “American way” down the throat of the rest of the church is destined to stir resistance. The Vatican has to be conscious of that bit of baggage too, to avoid making things worse in the name of making them better.
None of this, of course, disqualifies the approach worked out in the United States from informing new global rules on sex abuse, a process which to some extent is already underway. In a conference call with reporters on Thursday, Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, who serves as chair of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on the Protection of Children and Young People, argued that recent adjustments to canon law adopted by the Vatican not only build on the American norms, but in some respects go beyond them.
Even so, it’s worth remembering that setting policy for a global church is almost always more complicated than it might seem -- including, of course, how it might seem from a newsroom in New York.
* * *
As expected, the Vatican released a long-awaited set of revisions to church law governing sexual abuse cases this week. My news story on the revisions, which in general simply codify what was already existing practice, can be found here: http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-revises-church-law-sex-abuse
One point which raised eyebrows around the world is that in addition to tweaking the rules on sex abuse, the Vatican also added several offenses against the sacraments to the church’s list of “grave crimes,” including the attempted ordination of women.
Critics charged that the Vatican was thereby equating women’s ordination with pedophilia. For the record, however, the logic seemed mostly bureaucratic.
As it happens, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is responsible both for the canonical dimension of the sexual abuse crisis and for serious offenses against the sacraments, including Holy Orders. Since the congregation was revising its rules on sex abuse, it used the occasion to bring the law up to date on matters pertaining to the sacraments as well … not only women’s ordination, but also crimes such as taping and/or broadcasting the sacrament of penance. For the most part, this was housecleaning which didn’t introduce anything new; the bit on women’s ordination, for example, codifies a decree the congregation issued back in 2007, warning that anyone who tries to ordain a woman, or any woman who proclaims herself ordained, is automatically excommunicated.
Msgr. Charles Scicluna, a Maltese priest who serves as Promoter of Justice in the congregation, gave a press briefing in Rome on Thursday, and he insisted that the Vatican is not actually comparing women’s ordination to sexual abuse. Ordaining a woman, Scicluna said, is a “sacramental” crime, while sex abuse is a “moral” crime.
Be that as it may, many observers couldn’t help feeling that at the very least, the appearance of lumping women’s ordination in with the sexual abuse crisis underscored the Vatican’s on-going PR problems. On a day when it should have had a clear PR win -- “Church tightens rules on sex abuse” -- the Vatican managed, according to many media-watchers, to step on its own story once again. Surely, such observers said, the Vatican could have rolled out the new rules on sex abuse separately, then waited a few days before quietly promulgating the other changes.
On that front, this week’s prize for taking lemons and making lemonade probably should go to Cupich. Pressed on what the Vatican was saying by putting these two matters together, Cupich went for the two-point reversal: The important point, he suggested, is not that women’s ordination is being taken as seriously as sex abuse, but rather that sex abuse is being taken as seriously as women’s ordination and other crimes against the sacraments.
During Thursday’s conference call, Cupich argued that by inserting sex abuse on its register of grave crimes against the sacraments, the Vatican is saying that the sexual abuse of children is “a violation of our core values of faith and worship” -- comparable, therefore, to profanation of the Holy Eucharist or breaking the seal of the confessional. Such a level of seriousness, Cupich argued, illustrates a “strong resolve to do everything possible to see that children are protected and safe.”
If nothing else, the ability to sidestep a PR landmine like that suggests that American bishops have picked up a thing or two about spin over the last decade.
(On the subject of PR, kudos are also due to the Vatican for at least making Scicluna available to the press on Thursday. He knows the canonical dimension of the sex abuse crisis as well as anyone on the planet, he’s Maltese and thus fluent in English, and he’s an engaging and media-savvy character. Yet since the most recent wave of the crisis erupted in January, Scicluna has been largely silent. If Thursday signals that he’s finally been taken “off the leash,” it could bode well for public understanding of the church’s response to the crisis, especially in the Anglophone world.)
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
NCR reporting on revised norms on sex abuse and crimes against the sacraments
|
Personally, I don't buy the
Personally, I don't buy the one strike & you're out but my own view comes pretty close to it. I'm all for the one strike when it comes to pedohilia which is a worse crime than ephebiophilia. And since it is a worse crime then the penalty for ephebiophilia should be less than the penalty for pedophilia. So I would allow one strike for ephebiophilia but on the second strike you're out. I would define a child as someone under 12 yrs old and a teen as someone over 12 & under 16 yrs old. Any sexual contact between a teen 16 & over & an adult should not be seen as a crime in my view. If the adult is in authority over the teen then both of them should be punished by the law.
Thank you, John Allen, for
Thank you, John Allen, for clarifying the relationship between the ruling on women's ordination with that on sexual abuse of children. After reading the NY Times article today (July 16) and finding their report hard to believe, it is very helpful to read your clarifications
I find it interesting that a
I find it interesting that a bishop who "attempts" to ordain a woman incurs automatic excommunication. However a bishop who covers up repeated and egregious examples of priestly sex abuse and who hides evidence of these grave sins (and crimes!!!) from the people --- well, he just keeps on keeping one. And, if he is a really big player, then --- how about a nice Roman sinecure to help you make up for your sins? Cdl. Law, anyone?
The hypocrisy of the clerical structure of this church is becoming overwhelming these days.
Crisp, clean, and to the
Crisp, clean, and to the point. Thank ou for your reporting sir.
John Allen's use of the word
John Allen's use of the word "consensual" in describing a sexual relationship between an adult priest and a teenager shows a woeful lack of understanding of the definition of consensual and the inherent power disparity of such a relationship. How can a 16 year old boy or girl give consent in such a situation? What parent would be happy if a 15 year old girl announced her love for her soccer coach, and how long would he last in his middle school teaching position?
Take a second look at your assertion, John, and check your dictionary.
I found Mr Allen's article to
I found Mr Allen's article to be very enlightening and intelligent. Whilst my reaction to his article is 99% positive, I must concur with Ms Vosbury's deep disappointment with his unfortunate use of the word 'consensual' in reference to an priest/teenager sexual relationship. Any apparent consent in such circumstances is no consent at all. In any event, I can assure every reader of the article that the 'consent' argument in such circumstances would certainly not hold water in the courts of my home country of Australia.
Dominic Cudmore
Lawyer
Brussels, Belgium
John Allen seems to forget
John Allen seems to forget that there is already a universal policy in place in the Church. It comes from Scripture where Jesus was very clear about what should happen to someone who hurts a child. He/she is supposed to have a millstone tied around his/her neck and be thrown into the sea. A millstone is a heavy piece...tied around one's neck would mean that the person would drown in very little time. While I do not recommend this practice in 2010, I do believe we need to follow the lead of Jesus in condemning acts of abuse against children. In this day and age, that means ZERO TOLERANCE policies (yes, worldwide)so everyone is clear about what happens to child abusers. We need to stop "rationalizing" whether or not this policy is good or bad, can be applied internationally or not, and is part of the "difficulty" of adopting policies for the entire Church. When it comes to child abuse, Jesus was very clear. Why can't Catholic journalists be as clear. The bishops, canonists, etc. who believe that one act of abuse 20 years ago by a priest does not rise to the "one strike and you're out" seriousness are delusional. First of all, the priest probably has many acts of abuse against him. How will we know if he has abused only once. Secondly, anyone who harms a child must be removed from ministry ("the millstone in 2010).
A priest who has "consensual
A priest who has "consensual encounter" with a teenage??? There is no consent when one party has such perceived authority over another...that priest violated trust and deserves to be punished and does not deserve the priveledge of being in the ministry. The vatican's unwillingness to accept one-strike and your out has more to do with the limited number of priests than justice.
A priest must be held to higher standards, the highest and while he may be Blessed by God's Grace, and even forgiveness by the victim, one sexual misconduct with a minor should result in not being able to minister to people. Period
The above is full of Man's
The above is full of Man's thoughts. How man thinks things should be done. What the C.C. needs to do is follow God's law...Under God's law, one size does fit all.
In the first century, an attempt was made to defile the congregation of God’s people by bringing gross immorality into it. This took place in the congregation at Corinth. Those in charge of the Corinthian congregation were apathetic toward this insidious infiltration, (REMINDS ME OF WHAT HAPPENING IN THE C.C.) BUT THE APOSTLE PAUL ACTED TO CLEAR OUT THE VICIOUS CANCEROUS THING FROM AMONG THEM. .
In 1Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul wrote: “Actually fornication is reported among you, and such fornication as is not even among the nations, that a wife a certain man has of his father. And are you puffed up, and did you not rather mourn, in order that the man that committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? I for one, although absent in body but present in spirit, have certainly judged already, as if I were present, the man who has worked in such a way as this, that in the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are gathered together, also my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, YOU HAND SUCH A MAN OVER TO SATAN for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. .REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOUR SELVES.
By imposing a zero tolerance
By imposing a zero tolerance policy on the entire church regarding clergy sexual abuse, the Pope would be faithful to the man whom he is supposed to emulate: Jesus Christ. Jesus was very clear about HIS policy toward child abusers. He said they should have millstones tied around their necks and be thrown into the sea.
Ultimately it sounds like
Ultimately it sounds like they are using a "take off" oo Christ's statement about the poor being with us except that it is" pedofiles" who will always be with us."
And, dear lay person, they are so entrenched that, yes, they have their own "lobby" in the Vatican.
Personally I am angry and disappointed that the church is not dealing with this by using all the moral certitude it has been given by God.
A BRILLIANT COLUMN - John
A BRILLIANT COLUMN - John Allen is a master Vaticanologist, as good as -- and maybe even better than -- his European colleagues. Our vaunted American newspapers and magazines have nothing to match the brilliance of the reporting and analysis of John Allen and his European Vaticanologists. The New York Times has to farm out its reporting on the Vatican to free-lancers -- good as they may be -- and has to rely on "ad hoc" reporting on the Vatican. One hundred ninety countries have ambassadors to the Vatican, but our condescending American newspapers and other American news media don't have a single fulltime repoter at this important crossroads of the world.
What I appreciate about your
What I appreciate about your (John Allen's) articles is your ability to accurately explain the hierarchy's views as well as the rationale for them. It helps me discern what is right and wrong about them as well as what needs further dialogue. While some might criticize your "nanosecond" remark, it tells me that you understand why American Catholic critics of the Vatican get so frustrated. The point about "reporting allegations to the corrupt secular police might be problematic in many parts of the world" sounds reasonable, except that reporting sexual crimes to discredited, corrupt bishops has been a worldwide failure. While corrupt police officials may have ulterior motives, bishops continue to have a conflict of interest when it comes to adjudicating the truth or falsity of an allegation, and canonical secretive courts have no independence. As a RETIRED FORENSIC COUNSELOR I must point out that bishops and other church officials have no investigative training or experience in cases of pedophilia. The "police" arguement is specious. As far as the comments "shoving the American way down the throat of the rest of the church" and the "Vatican has to avoid making things worse in the name of making them better" sound like excuses, misperceptions, or bias to me.
Take the 2 phrases and apply them to the Vatican's decision to "shove their Latinized pseudo-english mistranslated sacramentary down the American chuch's throat" all in the "name of making things better." In either case the traditional axiom "against the ends justifying the means,"would be a less egregious point.In addition the stated point, about "there is a world of difference between a priest who is a serial rapist of pre-pubescent children and a priest who had a consensual encounter with a teenager 20 years ago," also requires a rebuttal. There is NOT a world of difference as long as the teenager is under 18. In both cases they are abusive crimes of POWER of an adult over a child. Children by definition are not capable of giving fully free consent to sexual "encounters" with an adult. The adult's powers of coercion, intimidation, persuasion, and seduction are superior to the child's ability to resist, including the temptation of a teenager. The only thing where a differnce might apply is in the degree of punishment that those convicted might receive. It also depends on whether the priest's 20 year old "encounter" was truly the only one.
Officials in the church need more than a canon lawyers advice, and statements like those in the article need correction. Now John you (and others) might pass along why holding those stated "opinions" are problematic to justice.
That's it, John, make excuses
That's it, John, make excuses for the hierarchy again. Yes, we know the Church hierarchy's position on women's ordination to the Catholic priesthood, but to have it reported out with the policy on pediphilia was astounding and just plain "shoot yourself in the foot" stupid. Let's just take the American church for a minute; if women who do good work in the church (as one American bishop saw it) decide to go on strike to protest the Vatican's ill-timed comments, who would catechize the next generation, minister in health care fields, volunteer to head up parish ministries, feed the hungry, clothe the naked? The social work in the American Church would come to a screeching halt. Do you know how demeaning it is for women who are called to holy ministry to be lumped in with other grave sins, such as pedophilia, if they seek the work of Christ through priesthood? The Church hierarchy (and others it would seem) are so far out of touch with its Church, that they do not lead anymore. Why do I remain a Catholic? The Church of Jesus Christ is in there somewhere, as I remind myself when I receive the Eucharist. I have to stay in the fight for the next generations of women who feel called by the Spirit to minister as ordained members of the Body of Christ. As for those sitting in the Vatican, they are gravely out of touch - and if they've learned how to "spin" the story, I wouldn't consider that a compliment. It puts them right down there with politicians and Wall Street types.
Canon lawyers can split
Canon lawyers can split ecclesiastical hairs as much as they want when trying to figure out how to deal with child abusers. BUT ... when has it never been a civil crime to sexually abuse a child? Let the vatican's legal mills grind slowly. What about punishing the predators who have commited civil felonies, and punishing those who have enabled them and covered up their behavior? Seems to me the Inquisition had no problem turning over jews to the "secular arm" in the middlde ages!
I'm sorry John, your
I'm sorry John, your commentary betrays an unfortunate ignorance about the realities of child sexual and physical abuse.
Until Ray Helfer and others exposed 'The Battered Child' in the late 60's, abuse was rampant and tolerated. Largely as a result of his and many others' work over the next two decades, it became legally mandatory that any child healthcare professional be required to report SUSPICION of abuse (physical or sexual). That wording is one of the reasons that the incidence of child abuse has declined. If one ignores suspicion, one does so at the risk of the child.
I find it appalling that the Vatican did not years ago mandate that suspicion of abuse be reported to local authorities, and I would strongly support national legislation applying the same standard to physicians of the soul as is applied to physicians of the body.
Your argument -- 'one strike and you're out' -- is also misplaced. The child protective system is set up to investigate (as, by the way, the church is not). If there are no grounds for the suspicion, there is no penalty. If there are grounds, then prosecution occurs. Only if proof is sufficient is there conviction, punishment, and nowadays, a well-deserved assumption that the perpetrator represents a substantial risk to children. Why? Because the rate of recidivism is so frighteningly high, as a huge body of literature has shown.
The approriate stance for the Church should be to report abuse, get out of the way and let the civil authorities do their job. That effectively allows for local disposition in accordance with local custom. There is no need for the church to worry about 'one size fits all'.
I don't for a moment believe that the Church should be granted special privilege in this matter; that very attitude has caused great harm to children for decades. It should not be allowed to continue.
One final word: Your hyperbole extends even to your description of time. 8 years is 4 one-thousandths of the time since Our Lord. 8 years is not a nanosecond for anyone. It is nearly half a generation, and there have only been 100 generations since the time of Christ.
John, the inclusion of
John, the inclusion of womens' ordination, defined as a grave crime, in the sex abuse document is inexcusable, whatever excuses you make that this was mere housekeeping. Nonsense. It was deliberate and a defiant affront to the views of millions of Catholics.
To John Dioro: It wasn't a
To John Dioro:
It wasn't a "sex abuse document"! It was a document specifying changes to the areas of competence of a particular department in Rome; and a good deal of what it said was about sex abuse. But it wasn't offered as a "sex abuse document"; that's how the media treated it.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
The Greek Catholic church in
The Greek Catholic church in Ukraine is being harassed by the state. So, they should not report child rape by the clergy to the police and instead conduct highly confidential investigations??
While the state of affairs are not the same all over the world, I'd have thought that this was a straightforward issue!
No, he's saying that the
No, he's saying that the state will use allegations against individual clergymen as an excuse to attack the Church as a whole. Having lived in the former Soviet Union, I can believe it. Those people play hardball. In Ukraine, at least according to an earlier article of Allen's, the police are calling Church leaders and saying, basically, "We know where to find you -- ha ha!" If they want to put the collar -- pardon the expression -- on the clergy, they should at least be made to go to the trouble of inventing the charges and planting the evidence.
Thanks to John Allen for a
Thanks to John Allen for a good glimpse inside the thinking of the Vatican insiders. In the wake of Boston, the response from the Vatican was, 'This is an American problem.' Now the response from the Vatican, according to Allen, appears to be, 'That American response is not right for the global church.'Voice of the Faithful believes that the American norms should be applied as the law of the Church, for one simple reason: These norms are the only credible, reasonable response that has been put forward to date anywhere in the church. They are not perfect, but they are a start, and they are mandatory. The most serious flaw in the Vatican revisions announced on Thursday is that they are not mandatory, only guidelines, which can be ignored or modified by a hierarchy that has already shown its predisposition to avoid strong action. Given all the nuances of the inside thinking, it would be disastrous for the Church to spend the next umpteen years sorting through the issues before mandating a set of global norms. Our moral credibility is on the line now, the world is waiting for our response now, not in the year 2110. Our view is that the American norms are a good start, and can be improved over time, by providing stronger protection and due process for priests wrongly accused, and by being adapted to local conditions in the global Church. Francis Piderit for Voice of the Faithful
Dear Mr. Fox, As I read your
Dear Mr. Fox,
As I read your comments, they reinforced my reasons for becoming simply Catholic and no longer Roman Catholic. The ethics of the RCC are far behind secular ethics. The RCC has much more a clerical problem than a need to fight secular ethics. Too bad and shame on the RCC.
Mr. Allen, You forgot the
Mr. Allen,
You forgot the fourth reason: the American norms are a sham as they do NOT apply to the bishops themselves, many of whom have been committed sexual abuse and/or covered up sexual abuse.
Why would you or anyone else want these American "norms", which do not apply to bishops, to be applied universally?
However, I do understand why you were OK with these norms here in the U.S. - they allowed your favourite dissidents to remain in office.
Jon
1. They could have made a
1. They could have made a rule for notifying the law enforcement officers of child abuse, and then publicly issued specific dispensations for such situations as Allen points out in the Ukraine. As it is there is no such rule anywhere.
2. By linking child abuse with women's ordination in this document, they show that they still haven't distinguished between criminal acts that destroy the bodies and souls of the victims, and differences of opinion over church beliefs and practices.
This makes a lot of sense and
This makes a lot of sense and is a good explanation of why Rome keeps issuing controversial statements.
The Vatican perspective is so power-protective -- that anything "proclaimed" just adds salt to very deep wounds in the "people of God" church striving to let the Spirit breathe the newness of God to a dying system.
This is balance? One can
This is balance?
One can explain the Vatican mindset and its rationales without succumbing to them beyond mentioning that, by the way, critics really want an imperial papacy. Critics want a just papacy, however that is achieved or adapted to.
The Vatican wants it both ways: publicly keep it local so the mess is not our responsibility (plausible deniability despite behind the scenes control) and publicly keep it Roman when it serves our purposes.
See Tom Doyle's article for points excluded here regarding statutes of limitation, secrecy, and the structural issues about monarchical governance.
Defending the Vatican recent
Defending the Vatican recent statements concerning the crime of child sex abuse, John Allen's comment:"...aside from the fact that Rome has an evolutionary sense of time (in which eight years seems a nanosecond), there are three other reasons why this is hardly a shocker" proves that he has drunk the Vatican Kool Aid! Why should the rest of the world continue to treat the glacier pace of Vatican bureaucracy as if it is some sort of sacred cow? They have websites, use the internet, even (gasp!)use fax machines. There is simply no more excuse for the slow pace from these swishing cassocks and "capa magna" wearers. Please, John, enough of your "I-know-better-than-you-proviincial-Americans"smugness! The latest PR gaff pairing women's ordination with sex abuse crime is just one more proof of the fear they have of women. And re: your praise for Cupich's rejoinder makes me say "and I have my doubts about thee" on this point as well.
The fact that the Vatican
The fact that the Vatican even mentions women's ordination in the same breath as sexual abuse by male priests is appalling lack of respect and also does not reflect historical facts. We now know that many holy women, including Mary Magdala, were regarded priestly leaders by Jesus. Also, although men tried to wipe documentation of women priests in the early Church, we also know this occurred. So much bunk in the argument that women priests are not our tradition and would be subject to excommunication! These men continue to be arrogant, fearful and ignorant and think we dont get it! In the future the Church will look back in shame on this episode.
The Catholic Church's Canon
The Catholic Church's Canon law and total moral Tradition which it reflects is of course "Zero Tolerant" of moral violations in every area from lying to stealing to sexual sinabuse. Howeer even the civil code distunguishes between a lie that tries to save embarrassment and one that puts an innocent person on Death Row. The US bishops' vaguely worded and very broadly interpreted aplication of sexual abuse is akin to equting calling President Obama a liar at the State of the Union address and shooting JFK in Dallas; sodomy with a boy or intercourse with a female under 18 are on the "one stike and out" level as toucing their private parts once decades ago. Slapping a buttocks in a swimming pool or sending an e-mail with sexual content hardly meerit a death sentence for a priest's entire otherwise faithful ministry. The Dallas Charter and the actions of many bishops with due process, proportionality, total disrespect for fairnes truth and justice are on a par with the Soviet Union and many nations' police tactics today as allued to in the fine article by Mr Allen. The NYT is not exactly a model of "fair and balancd" treatment of moral issues and the coverage of the Catholic Church. As an aside their honoring of Pope Pius X11 for his policy and conduct trying to save Jews in WW in teh Times' famous Christmas editorial in 1944 woild be a great model for all who attack his memory and record today and who seem to have 'zero tolerance' for this current Pope and the church which he shepherds.
It is worth noting that the
It is worth noting that the most important fact that in fact Vatican had in fact condemned the US Bishops policy of zero tolerance arguing that “VATICAN CITY, Feb. 23, 2010 -- A draft report released Monday by scientists commissioned by the Vatican harshly criticized as potentially dangerous the U.S. Catholic Church's policy of removing priests from the ministry for committing one act of child abuse.
The report, the result of a conference held here last April that featured eight non-Catholic experts recommended that the so-called zero-tolerance policy be reconsidered. A Canadian expert, William Marshall, described the policy as an "abdication of responsibility" that could discourage offending clerics from seeking treatment. Moreover, he wrote, "Such a policy is certain to have disastrous consequences, including the clergy sex offender committing suicide or re-offending.
"All offending clerics should be offered treatment and then reintegrated as much as possible into the normal aspects of life."
Zero tolerance "does not function to prevent these crimes," Hans-Ludwig Kroeber, director of Berlin's Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, said at the symposium. "It is better to domesticate the dragon. If all you do is cut off its head, it will grow another."
There are two type of people in this world one – who will give you million reasons why something can’t be done and the other – who will say how can we do. The Vatican and the Pope are masters of foot dragging, making excuse and more concerned about their standing than the plight of children and women that the Priests and Bishops continue to rape and abuse. While making the current cosmetic changes the Pope did not let the opportunity go without hammering another nail in the coffin of women – clearly demonstrating his contempt for women. Is this what Jesus would have done? I do hope he gets his just rewards when he faces his maker and there he will not be able to claim diplomatic immunity.
John Allen Jr holds
John Allen Jr holds disgusting ideas. It is a CRIME that a priest or bishop in a position of power and authority gets a teenager to have sex with him. An adult, a parent, priest, teacher, relative, neighbour, coach, any adult who coercises a child or teenager to submit to sex with that adult commits a CRIME against that teenager or child.
To minimize the abuse which Allen Jr does in this article is additional abuse! I am very upset at Allen Jr for holding such evil ideas that gives a free pass to priests and bishops to abuse, rape, sodomize youths and teenagers! It is a CRIME ,an abuse of POWER over that teenager that a priest or bishop has sex with children or teenagers.
The bishops, priests,
The bishops, priests, archbishops, cardinals, popes are NOT to co-operate with fascist totalitarian governments and allow abuses of people to appease totalitarian police and governments.
The clergy are to uphold the teachings of Jesus and God, not prop up and help totalitarian governments or any governments, against justice, against mercy and against compassion that Jesus taught.
John Allen Jr has capitulated to powers that be and is justifying abuses against human rights, Is he such a shill for the pope that he abandons justice, fairness, mercy, compassion? He is becoming an enabler and apologist for evil practices of the pope and hierarchy.
The pope has enabled
The pope has enabled trafficking of children and teenagers for sexual abuses by priests and bishops. The pope has ignored sexual abuses perpetrated by Roman Catholic clerics. The pope has violated the U.N. Rights of the Child. The pope too should be tried for crimes against children and teenagers committed by his neglect and his enabling of the abuses of the Roman Catholic clergy.
Any immunity given to hierarchy and the pope should be revoked. I understand the pope arranged from President Bush to give the pope immunity from sex crimes prosecution. That is wrong and should be revoked! Can anyone give us more information about these machinations carried out by this evilly cunning pope... what a diabolical fellow BXV1 is!
"A July 9 editorial in The
"A July 9 editorial in The New York Times called upon Pope Benedict XVI to make the American bishops’ “zero tolerance” approach to sexual abuse binding on the worldwide Catholic church."
## How is such an an "approach" "American" ? The Bishops of England & Wales have had a similar policy since 2001:
http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/Catholic-Church/media_centre/press_rele...
"In England and Wales, since 2001, the agreed policy followed by the bishops has been to report all allegations of child abuse, no matter from how far in the past, to the police or social services. By doing so and by having clear safeguarding procedures in place in every parish as well as independent supervision at diocesan and national level, we have built good relationships with those authorities in these matters, including, in some areas, co-operation in the supervision of offenders in the community."
In reference to the fifth
In reference to the fifth paragraph, second sentence, I take issue with "priest who had a consensual encounter with a teen-ager." According to the ethical criteria taught by Faith Trust Institute, leading pastoral educators (located in Seattle, WA.), there is no such thing as "consensual sex" with congregants, employees, vulnerable adults, who have less power than clergy/church personnel. Any sexual behavior involving one person in a position of trust with another of lesser power is not ethical, period. Bottom line is: this is power abuse experienced in the sexual arena. Until people in civic, professional and ecclesiastical structures understand and accept that power is the issue and not sexual misconduct, reforms will neither be adequate nor just. Juridical and legal fine points do not begin to equate with the moral and ethical standard to which all pastoral personnel are held. The effects of sexual misconduct by priests, religious, church volunteers on vulnerable persons amounts to spiritual abuse because of the added dimension of the "stand-in" for divinity. This is what makes clergy abuse so devastating. The reforms are happening but still short of what is right and just AND healing for all: individuals, families, congregations, communities of faith, institutional structures, everyone affected by this perncious activity. M. Fortune, T.Doyle, T.Radcliffe, & R.Sipe are among the few who name accurately and write clearly on this issue.
What about the Canadian way ?
What about the Canadian way ? The CCCB issued its own ''zero tolerance '' guidelines way back in 1992, and no one ever took a notice of that. The Americans were completely unable to learn from the experiences of the Canadian Church and had to repeat and relearn eveything, as if the ''Alphonsus Penney affair'' in St John's had never happened.
Just a reminder: Jesus to
Just a reminder:
Jesus to Vassula, October 14, 1991
Will I, brother, one more season
go through the pain I have been
going through year after year?
or will you give Me rest
this time?
Am I going to drink one more
season the Cup of your division?
or will you rest My Body
and unify, for My sake,
the Feast of Easter?
In unifying the date of Easter, you will alleviate My pain brother and you will rejoice in Me and I in you and I will have the sight of many restored. (Oct 14, 1991)
Thanks John Allen for a good,
Thanks John Allen for a good, fair description of the different perspectives.
I live abroad and I can fully understand the disparity between American thinking and that of much of the rest of the world, particularly about police.
Now that being said, it is up to the U.S. bishops to respond favorable to the possible inclusion of police in this issue of sex abuse. That is, if we still have basic trust of the police and the civil justice system.
Catholics who believe that
Catholics who believe that the church should allow women to become priests seem to forget the church is on a mission that it is trying to complete, which has something to do with the fall of man.
Jim M on Jul. 18, 2010. You
Jim M on Jul. 18, 2010.
You stated:
"Catholics who believe that the church should allow women to become priests seem to forget the church is on a mission that it is trying to complete, which has something to do with the fall of man."
-------------------------------------
Would you mind explaining, then, what was the purpose of Jesus entering human life, living among us, teaching us, healing us, dying, rising, and sending the Holy Spirit upon us--to be with us continually----if we are still in our original sin? Are you saying that Jesus' entry into our human existence was meaningless?
Why was it that Jesus not only permitted women to sit at his feet to listen to him---but he also praised them (like Mary of Bethany----as we heard this past Sunday in the Gospel). Why did God select a simple girl of Nazareth, Mary, to be the mother of his Son? Why did Jesus consider women good enough to be in his company---also to be disciples? Why were women the first ones to see Jesus after his resurrection? Why is Mary Magdalene called the Apostle to the Apostles? Why were Mary, Jesus' mother, and other women in the Upper Room at the time of Pentecost?
It seems obvious that God is calling people to service of God's people--- both men and women---not just picking and choosing men. In fact, those chosen are only for the sake of the many, or as Paul put it "the dough is for the whole batch" (Romans 11:16 ff.)
We are all saved in spite of ourselves---and for one another. It never was a worthiness contst. If God is love and if grace is true, then what exactly is the cutoff point? "When is God's arm too short to save: (Isaiah 50:2). And when is God unable to call anyone of God's choosing? To be a priest, is to be a servant. To be a bishop is to give service as a shepherd. To be a pope is to be the servant of the servants of God. Are there any among these who have achieved worthiness and do not need saving? Name them, please.
Jesus told Peter that what he binds on earth is bound in heaven. What is unbound on earth, is unbound in heaven. The CHURCH HAS THE CAPACITY TO WELCOME and ORDAIN WOMEN AS PRIESTS. Why does not the official Church use Peter's power of the keys to UNBIND canon law in this way, and to offer to the world the full victory of God's love? Why do we prefer binding to unbinding; when Jesus clearly gave us BOTH (Matthew 16:19)?
Vatican has its own way of
Vatican has its own way of dealing with issues. They do not want ideas to common from outside the walls of Vatican. I am sure they will eventually come along but it will have to be their own way.
Americans may represent only
Americans may represent only 6% of Catholics but how much of the money flow into Rome do they represent? My guess is 50%. We know there is great anti American feelings in the curia. A great reason for the American Catholic church to break with Rome. But the pansy bishops we have will never do it. So the American Catholic Church will continue to die a slow and painful death. Some smart Catholic will do a Joel Osteen, go on TV, compete with EWTN and get all the Catholics that are leaving the Catholic church because of child abuse, abortion, divorce, birth control, condoms, aids, wife abuse, woman abuse, etc. The list is endless for leaving the American Catholic church. And now the bishops can excommunicate at will under the new norms. Heck I may be excommunicated just for this email. Here come the SS, Opus Dei and all the other radical nuts in the church. Even the Legionaries have survived a founder that was reincarnation of the devil, abused his own children, married, abused seminarians and paid off everyone in the Vatican to ignore his Dr. Jekyl Mr. Hyde life. It's all about power and money in Rome folks. That is why nothing substantive is being done about child abuse in the new norms. Rome wants child abuse to continue. And they want to continue to protect guys like the founder of the Legionaries, as well as many bishops and cardinals. Nero was right. Let Rome burn to the ground. Then we will rebuild the City of God.
I'm with Tom. Let it burn.
I'm with Tom. Let it burn. Weather I agree with zero tolerance, weather the graveness of women's ordination doesn't really suggest that it's as bad as pedophelia, or weather the church moves in slow motion is all beside the point. It's just a sad boys club not wanting to lose their power. Their decisions are not based on the examples of Jesus and the way the hierarchy is et up set up - our priests and bishops feel like they have to bow to the vatican. We,the laity, have enabled this for far too long. We are too afraid to lose our parishes and schools if we don't keep the contributions rolling. Until we get over that fear, there is no hope. My hope lies in "church" as small faith communities and also the ability to get Catholic business leaders to support lay led private schools so the tradition of Catholic education with Post Vatican II theology can thrive. I can always hope.
One strike (mistake)and
One strike (mistake)and you're out and we would no longer be reading the NY Times. The brainless support of the war in Iraq is a blunder beyond all imagination for any respected news media. The cost to human life and suffering is beyond calculations. Who's to keep a clear vision not muddled by political adventurism if our media totally fails? What would be the reaction to a priest killing one inocent child? Yet the failure of the NY Times to fulfill it's trust to serve it's readers with truth is a crime against humanity. They are part and parcel to every death and maiming that takes place in the Iraq war. Recent editorial policies show an agenda that too easily scuttles truth for editorial ideology (I reference Kenneth L. Woodward's article in the May 7 issue of Commonweal). This is a big time media giant that makes a farce of the saying that the media is the fourth branch of American democracy.
John Allen has stopped
John Allen has stopped reporting objectively years ago. Most of his articles I just don't read anymore. Thought I would give this one a try...
big mistake... same old apologies for the hierarchy under the guise of factual reporting about why these people think the way they do. If he stopped at that, he might be worth reading, although it would still hardly be objective.
Allen has to only vaguely disguise his approval of Vatican policies because he knows that the Vatican watch dogs are keeping an eye on him and if he ever stated a disagreement or give an unfavorable motive to the actions of the Vatican elite, his invitation to the inner sanctum would be revoked.
To call him a renowned Vaticanologist is a joke.
Thanks you, John for an
Thanks you, John for an interesting description of this issue.
I am a priest in Australia and two things I have repestedly noticed since I began reading ncronline and other websites.
One, distressing, is how quickly comments descend into attacks rather than discussion. The second is how Americans repeatedly assume that theri experience is the normative for the whole church worldwide. The comment above re how much money the US church sends is completely irrelevant to the issue. I find your articles to be a refreshing exception to both the trends I refer to.
God Bless.
I've just started following
I've just started following the NCR blogs. Impressive, especially John Allen's.
But the volume of the comments here is overwhelming!
Wow, the rants just get
Wow, the rants just get crazier as the page gets longer.
Why is it so difficult for
Why is it so difficult for some to understand that an explanation is not a justification or a rationalization. It is an attempt to show why people do what they do and not a defense of what they have done. John Allen has done an excellent job of explaining how the Vatican works and why it works that way. He is not judging the actions.
Msgr has said that "ordaining
Msgr has said that "ordaining a woman is a 'sacramental' crime..." Must we, therefore,accept that"women [I have a saintly mother and six sisters], however holy, are in God's own design intrinsically unfitted for the ministry?" This is smacks of male chauvinism dressed up as theology to put it mildly.
The last line of my comment
The last line of my comment should read:"This smacks of male chauvinism dressed up as theology, to put it mildly. My apologies for the slip.
Msgr Scicluna said that
Msgr Scicluna said that "ordaining a woman is a sacramental crime..." Must we, therefore, accept that "women, however holy, are in God's own design intrinsically unfitted for the ministry?" This smacks of male chauvinism dressed up as theology, to put it mildly.
Post new comment