The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionVatican's new congregation of clichés doesn’t help beleaguered pope
by Eugene Cullen Kennedy on Oct. 07, 2010
After his 19th century visit to America, Charles Dickens expressed great sympathy for anybody who was elected president. No sooner did a man get elected, he noted ruefully, than the people not only began to criticize him but to work toward getting him out of office. Ask any president, in or out of office; they can tell you all about it. But so can Pope Benedict XVI whose resignation is demanded almost daily by one group or another because of his dealing with the clergy sex abuse crisis that has gripped the church for a decade.
Meanwhile, what appears to be a new Congregation of Clichés -- maybe Cardinal Law belongs to this one too -- is managing his schedule and messages as if everything is just fine, and the problems are all out there. The unintended consequence is the appearance of a disconnect as big as the Ritz between the pope and the world and the people around him. Just examine the first week of October.
ABC reports that Australian Queens Counsel Geoffrey Robertson, sounding like a Nuremburg prosecutor, claims that the pope is “morally responsible for a crime against humanity” and “should be made accountable for years of sexual abuse within the Catholic church.”
In the same news cycle, Catholic Culture cites a news wire report that Peter Adriaenssens, the psychologist who headed an independent commission examining the hundreds of cases of sex abuse among Belgian priests that have just come to light, says that it is, in effect, the pope’s fault and that he should resign to “set an example” of accountability in the church. While one might ask about what to do with the Belgian Bishops who kept silent for years about the problem, Adriaesenssens insists that the pope should take the fall to show that “one person is taking responsibility.” On almost the same day a federal judge in Milwaukee “asked Vatican officials to serve court papers on Pope Benedict XVI … in connection with a sex-abuse lawsuit involving a Wisconsin priest.”
The pope, of course, has apologized for the scandal many times, has instituted new norms to deal with sex abusing priests, and met with victims of sex abuse by clergy and other church personnel. Why has this obviously sincere and gentle man been unable to calm the flood waters of a crisis that threaten to engulf him?
While these waters swirl around the pope’s shoes and Mideast scholar Bernard Lewis predicts Islam will take over Europe by the end of the century, what does the monsignor in charge of Church Clichés tell us about the pope’s activities?
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.
Well, Pope Benedict left his summer home at Castel Gandolfo Sept. 30, promising the staff his prayers and “urging them to maintain their own active prayer life and to read the Bible regularly.”
A few days later, the pope praised the Brazilian bishops who were in Rome for their efforts to bring “the Good News of Jesus Christ to all corners of the Amazon jungle” while stating that “all Christians have an obligation to spread the Gospel.”
After a concert at the Vatican on Oct. 2, the pope “drew out the contrast between art and faith,” insisting that “faith can be aided by the arts, yet faith goes beyond the realm of artistry.” A few days later, he praised the artistry of religious of the monastery of Solesmes, France, for “their diligent prayer and labor, but especially for the most beautiful Gregorian chant, which is greatly cultivated by the monks there.”
On Oct. 3, the pope flew into Sicily where, heavily guarded, he urged the people to reject “the lure of the Mafia” and before flying away to let them confront the Corleones among them, wished them well, or good luck, by saying, “Courage, dear young people and families of Sicily. Be saints!”
On Oct. 6, the papal audience topic was St. Gertrude, a great German mystic and theologian who had a vision that luckily turned her away from the “liberal studies” that she had pursued “too avidly” to take up the “theological sciences.” Benedict also announced his general prayer intentions for the month, “That Catholic universities may more and more be places where, in the light of the Gospel, it is possible to experience the harmonizing unity existing between faith and reason.”
While in Sicily, Benedict tried to encourage those with a "tendency to discouragement, to resignation ... who think that in the face of evil, often profound evil, nothing can be done.”
During the first week of October. amid all the urging to read the bible and preach the Gospel -- the Cliché Congregation’s efforts to make life around the Vatican seem sunny and serene, there wasn't much talk about doing something about what many Catholics believe is the profound evil of the sex abuse crisis.
[Eugene Cullen Kennedy is emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Kennedy's column, Bulletins from the Human Side," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Kennedy to your list.
Gene, Is sarcastic bitterness
Gene,
Is sarcastic bitterness the only flavor-of-the-day offered in your NCR musings?
Agreed. So bitter it is
Agreed. So bitter it is essentially incoherent, as I doubt that Mr. Kennedy (much less his uncritical admirers) seriously believes in an Islamic bogeyman. If he does, I suspect Sr. Fiedler would want to have a word with him about his Islamophobia.
This Gertrude (that would be
This Gertrude (that would be me)is not a saint, but she urges the Pope to stop pursuing the theological sciences, take a sabbatical of sorts, and "avidly pursue" courses, many courses in Human Sexuality and a healthy dose of Psychology and Psychiatry so that he is able to unite the church's teaching of human sexuality with more current research findings and scientific facts. Before doing that, Cardinal Law "should" offer his resignation (which would be the right thing for him to do) and Pope Benedict 16 "should" accept it, which would also be the right thing for the Pope to do. That would be a good start in bridging the gap between the Vatican Curia and the Pope and the rest of us mere mortals.
This mentality is what the
This mentality is what the Seminary is designed to turn out--men of no consequence. It can't even teach the dead Latin language.
The Pope forgot to mention
The Pope forgot to mention something else about these monks:
"A few days later, he praised the artistry of religious of the monastery of Solesmes, France, for “their diligent prayer and labor, but especially for the most beautiful Gregorian chant, which is greatly cultivated by the monks there.”
As I discovered during my Fulbright year of teaching in Senegal, under the guidance of Pere Dominique CATTA, OSB, they are also the wellspring of liturgical INCULTURATION in West Africa, where their foundation at Keur Moussa continues to implement Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium.
http://www.amazon.com/Monks-of-Keur-Moussa-Abbey/e/B000AQ0KH2
http://www.abbaye-keur-moussa.org/musique/
http://www.abbaye-keur-moussa.org/
Memo to current Pope:
Remember Sacrosanctum Concilium #37-38?
37. Ecclesia, in iis quae fidem aut bonum totius communitatis non tangunt, rigidam unius tenoris formam ne in Liturgia quidem imponere cupit; quinimmo, variarum gentium populorumque animi ornamenta ac dotes colit et provehit; quidquid vero in populorum moribus indissolubili vinculo superstitionibus erroribusque non adstipulatur, benevole perpendit ac, si potest, sartum tectumque servat, immo quandoque in ipsam Liturgiam admittit, dummodo cum rationibus veri et authentici spiritus liturgici congruat.
38. Servata substantiali unitate Ritus romani, legitimis varietatibus et aptationibus ad diversos coetus, regiones, populos, praesertim in Missionibus, locus relinquatur, etiam cum libri liturgici recognoscuntur; et hoc in structura rituum et in rubricis instituendis opportune prae oculis habeatur.
37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.
Memo to VOX CLARA:
SUBSTANTIAL UNITY can only be preserved, not IMPOSED!
And that's no CLICHE!
Why is Benedict being treated
Why is Benedict being treated so harshly for what largely preceded his ascending to the papal throne while it was John Paul who turned a deaf ear and looked the other way while this scandal was unfolding? He not only ignored the charges against Fr. Marciel but also gave him places of great honor. Look, too, how he treated Cardinal Law by appointing him to the Basilica of St. Mary Major. John Paul seems to have gotten a free pass while Benedict is being held responsible for all that went wrong.
Both of them need to be held
Both of them need to be held accountable. Benedict was the head of the office that all these sexual abuse cases went through at the Vatican. So for 20 years he was part and parcel of the whole cover-up. And as you rightly point out JPII also knew about it...
That's not exactly accurate
That's not exactly accurate Joanne. Ratzinger's office was very, very limited in what cases it was charged with investigating, and it wasn't until much later in his tenure that the scope was greatly expanded (and, I believe, at Ratzinger's request to JP II) to examine all reported cases of abuse. But, I do very much agree that both popes are responsible for the lack of action by the Church, but also that we should give some credit to Ratzinger/Benedict for trying to do something in opposition to JPII's refusal to even acknowlege what was happening all around him.
Deacon Joe, The pope won't
Deacon Joe, The pope won't resign because he knows the crop of choices from which the electoral college of cardinals would draw his successor are a pretty sorry bunch of largely JP2 super reactionary toadies. Far more reactionary and intellectually unfit than B16 could ever be. So, the most he'll have to do in time is start throwing a bunch of them under the bus, forcing even more resignations as the revelations keep coming to light.
Pope B16 is himself the consummate bureaucrat. I hope someday the BBC will have a sequel to "Yes Prime Minister", the successful British TV comedy some years ago. "Yes, Your Holiness"??
He knows where ALL the bodies are buried and to whom the finger can be pointed if he has to. He knows how to survive when everyone else around him is dying off like victims in a Shakespearian tragedy.
He'a a clever old man. When the pope went to Sicily recently, he could have taught the Mafia a few tricks of his own.
It is clear that Pope
It is clear that Pope Benedict is dealing with the scandal the same way that the American Bishops dealt with it. They are treating it as a priest's scandal instead of a Bishop's scandal. The net effect is that the pope has decided that the bishop's did nothing wrong. He is ignoring what the bishops did. Since the bishops in diocese after diocese and country after country, and continent after continent treated the crimes the same way in secret, it is obvious that the hierarchy was following standard Vatican policy to cover up all scandalous crimes.
This policy has not been admitted by the Vatican, so it is still in place. This means that the pope has decided that all scandalous crimes will continue to be covered up by the hierarchy on a worldwide basis. Of course no one is allowed to ask about this since the pope only answers questions that are given to him ahead of time and he only answers the questions he wants to answer, since he is free to ignore any questions he does not want to answer.
Hence, the pretense that the Vatican is moving on to other things and going back to business as usual. They are pretending that the scandal is over, without really dealing with the continuing policy of secrecy. They are riding out the storm of the scandal waiting for the public to forget about it or get tired of it. The fact that the public has seen that all the bishops are liars and are not to be trusted is not going to be remedied because the pope has decided to ignore it. Evidently the people's inability to trust the bishops is not important to the pope.
Well so long as National
Well so long as National Catholic Reporter never gets leaned on and people like yourself continue to submit comments this will always remain a constant reminder of what isn't going to be accepted because it isn't right.
It only takes one burning burning candle to shed the light.
Burn away.
SURVEY SAYS: The cliches are
SURVEY SAYS:
The cliches are NOT working!!
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13268
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43274/britons-and-catholics-want-church-...
cf. TABLE 47:
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/table_pope_bri_...
I don't see what's so
I don't see what's so terrible about these papal quotes. Does he expect the Vatican to go for glitzy soundbites?
Submitted by Joe O'Leary on
Submitted by Joe O'Leary on Oct. 08, 2010.
You stated:
"I don't see what's so terrible about these papal quotes. Does he expect the Vatican to go for glitzy soundbites?"
--------------------------------------
Less talk from the Pope, Joe, and more action. When the Pope really wants something---the Vatican can move at almost lightening speed. But when the Vatican doesn't want to be clear---it makes statements that are very vague.
The Vatican needs to reform itself of its patriarchal hierarchy. It needs to admit that the SIN in the Church begins right at the Top, in the offices of the Curia, and right on down through the archbishops and bishops. It needs to reject the official definition of the Church---as a centralized absolute monarchy. When that is totally the opposite of what Christ stated as the role of Peter and the Apostles.
The laity has a task also. They need to grow up and overcome the spirituality of childish dependence upon the word of Hierarchial leaders that has been bred into our brains. The laity need to become people of prayer to overcome the split between spirituality and social action---which squeezes God out of real life.
The laity needs to acquire a critical knowledge of church history and theology in order to become informed critics of the lame assertions of power (coming from the hierarchy) that damage our spiritual life.
Finally the laity needs to be socially and ecologically committed and if need by---build alternative church communities and organizations while the "official Church" implodes upon itself. It has always been a Catholic tradition to build base communities or small worshipping groups. That was how the Church began---and that may need to be done again---while the 'Official Church' gets its act together.
Now, LittleBear, you know
Now, LittleBear, you know exactly what Christ stated to Peter and the Apostles? You never cease to amaze and to give us a good laugh!
Submitted by Milbo 1 on Oct.
Submitted by Milbo 1 on Oct. 11, 2010.
You stated:
"Now, LittleBear, you know exactly what Christ stated to Peter and the Apostles? You never cease to amaze and to give us a good laugh!"
----------------------------------------------
Yes, I do know what Jesus stated to the Apostles. And so do you, if you are capable of being really honest.
Jesus said NOTHING about Peter and the other Apostles---living the LIFE-STYLE of the rich and famous. Jesus said nothing about Peter wearing ermine, and living as an absolute monarch. Jesus stated nothing about papal infallibility (Peter made loads of mistakes both before and AFTER Pentecost---and he is still a great saint).
Jesus said nothing about the Apostles wearing jeweled pectoral crosses and matching jeweled rings, about their ceremonial finery, about being driven around by a chauffeur (often a younger priest---who should be out on a parish working among the people). Jesus said nothing about arch/bishops living in mansion-like dwellings (while their people are facing home-foreclosures). Jesus said nothing about Cardinals (and cardinals are a purely hiererchial creation) driving around in expensive cars---like Cardinal Franc Rode---in a Mercedes.
And I know what kind of example Jesus stated Peter and the Apostles were to give---nothing like this case. I know of a bishop, who last spring, chased two little Girl Scouts, dressed in their uniforms (both aged 9 and both Catholic), away from the front door of his mansion. The reason---they asked him if he wanted to buy Girl Scouts cookies. He threatened to call the police if they didn't leave immediately. He stated that they should have municipal tags on permitting them to solicit anything. The frightened children raced from his door to a waiting car in front of the property---driven by one of the girls' mother.
Needless to say, both of the girls' families are no longer attending the Catholic church. The father of one of the girls' personally requested to see the bishop about the incident----couldn't get to see him (or the bishop didn't want to see him), so the man spoke to the vicar general of the diocese. The other father, wrote a letter and mailed it to the Bishop and cc'd the letter to the pastor of the family's parish (and the priests of that diocese are talking about this incident among themselves---and shaking their heads in sad amazement).
Oh, yes---and we both know what Jesus stated to Peter and the Apostles about scandalizing children, don't we?
The truth is, people are sick and tired of the hierarchy's "Holier-than-Thou, Better than Thou" attitude. And my comments may amuse you----but people across the country and in other countries who have tramatic personal experiences with the successors of the Apostles----are not laughing.
Little Bear, Jesus said
Little Bear, Jesus said nothing about nuns, the LCWR, Bishop Conferences, sacred art that shows the best man is capable of achieving, yada, yada. I guess we should not have any of these things because Jesus did not mention them. You also try to throw in the kitchen sink---the abuse crisis was certainly not intended by Jesus and hurts Him, but it does not justify your statements. Jesus also never intended nuns (sisters) like Sister Donna Quinn to be an accomplice in the slaughtering of his tiny babies---a point that escapes you. You state: "I know of a bishop, who last spring, chased two little Girl Scouts, dressed in their uniforms (both aged 9 and both Catholic), away from the front door of his mansion. The reason---they asked him if he wanted to buy Girl Scouts cookies. He threatened to call the police if they didn't leave immediately. He stated that they should have municipal tags on permitting them to solicit anything. The frightened children raced from his door to a waiting car in front of the property---driven by one of the girls' mother."
Please provide the name of the Bishop, the date, the name of the Girl Scouts and their parents, and a link to this story in the press. In the past, you stated you know bishops who refuse to eat on anything but fine china at a picnic; you have also stated that you know what bishops have in their closets. Would you kindly name these bishops you allegedly know these things about so we can access your credibility? Right now, you lack credibility. I’m sure you’re not the only one who knows of these bishops.
Anyone can make the most outrageous claims as you are fond of doing. Credibility comes with naming names, dates, times, witnesses (I for one will never take your word alone), how one is privy to this information. Bearing false witness is sinful, Little Bear! Have you no shame? Have you no shame? I do not find your slandering of bishops to suit your agenda amusing.
Joe, in my opinion the quotes
Joe, in my opinion the quotes aren't "so terrible". It's just as Professor Kennedy states, they're cliches. It's kind of like us in the USA saying things under the guise of "mother and apple pie." The statements are bland, boring and expressive of nothing inspiring because they are so obvious. Glitzy is one thing; uninspirational and obviousness is another.
I think Prof Kennedy was attempting to convey that he sees a Vatican pattern of glossing over ecclesial nitty-gritty in favor of spinning "positive thinking". The anecdote that really brings this to light I think is the one in which Benedict appeared in Sicily HEAVILY GUARDED while urging those who live there to resist the Mafia. Has the Vatican never reflected that context shapes what what we say sometimes even more than words? I found myself wondering how he'd appear in a place like Juarez, Mexico, Naples or Waziristan near the Pakistan border; what might his message be? Are these statements really a manner of evangelization? What about witness as way to communicate - without glitz but effectively?
God Bless our wonderful Holy
God Bless our wonderful Holy Father!
It continues to give me great joy when he proceeds with his duties and work, while the slings, arrows and angry bile of his enemies come to naught.
May he sit in the Chair of Peter for MANY more years!
It's ridiculous to blame
It's ridiculous to blame Benedict for the scandal. When he came to power the scandal had pretty much run its course a few years before with the Dallas Charter & all. True, there were revelations coming to light about the situation in Europe after Benedict came to power but these accusations date back many years.
Of course, everyone in secular society wants to believe the worst about the Catholic Church. Somehow that makes them feel more comfortable in their own sexual immorality. But how reliable are claims that go back 25 to 30 years or more. These claims have to be seen in the light of the large cash awards given to alleged victims in America represented by shyster lawyers. People in Europe probably thought that the same thing would happen there.
And as far as involvement in any particular case of abuse from the angle of supervision as bishop, there was only one in Benedict's case. It is unclear though whether he or an underling should take responsibility for that. Apparently, a known pedophile priest sent for treatment to Benedict's diocese was re-assigned to parish work soon after he was enrolled for treatment.
Benedict as well as just about all of the bishops involved in supervising cases of abuse were guilty of a lack of prudence in the way they handled the cases but nothing more than that.
I blame B16 for not making a
I blame B16 for not making a concerted public effort to root out all of the coverups. Instead, he just waits and reacts to the latest country that uncovers bishops that have shielded and abetted pedophile priests. Intead of a visitation upon the US nuns, he should send audit teams to every diocese in the world over the next 5 years to audit ALL clergy and personnel files for evidence of undisclosed sexual abuse and order that all ordained abusers be brought up immediately on Canon Law charges and reported to the civil authorities. And any bishop that has not proactively done the same should be immediately replaced. Then, and only then, will anyone with an open mind start to take him seriously.
********************************************************************************
"But how reliable are claims that go back 25 to 30 years or more."
********************************************************************************
Do you think for one minute that this is a phenomenon unique to the late 20th century? Are you naive or in gross denial?
I would be the first to admit
I would be the first to admit that this situation in the Church was handled poorly. But I can't believe that any bishop was cavalier about this problem. It's like having a nightmare visit upon you.
No sin no matter how bad is beyond forgiveness, let us not forget that. And let us have a sense of proportion, every woman who has an abortion (1M / yr in the USA) is doing something far worse than any priest or adult in general who has sexual relations with an adolescent boy.
Actual pedophilia is a far worse thing than sexual abuse of an adolescent. But yet & still abortion is far worse than pedophilia. No sin is worse than murder & abortion is morally equivalent to murder. Scripture has a very serious sanction for pedophilia (the millstone) but murder is a sin which cries to heaven for vengeance!
Submitted by paulte on Oct.
Submitted by paulte on Oct. 13, 2010.
You stated:
"I would be the first to admit that this situation in the Church was handled poorly. But I can't believe that any bishop was cavalier about this problem. It's like having a nightmare visit upon you.
No sin no matter how bad is beyond forgiveness, let us not forget that. And let us have a sense of proportion, every woman who has an abortion (1M / yr in the USA) is doing something far worse than any priest or adult in general who has sexual relations with an adolescent boy.
Actual pedophilia is a far worse thing than sexual abuse of an adolescent. But yet & still abortion is far worse than pedophilia. No sin is worse than murder & abortion is morally equivalent to murder. Scripture has a very serious sanction for pedophilia (the millstone) but murder is a sin which cries to heaven for vengeance!"
------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, paulte, but apparently you have never had any experiences with an individual(s) who have been sexually abused. The memory of it does not go away. People can go for therapy---but the hurt, shame, anger----does not go away. And for many---this lasts a life-time. Some can't wait to live through the rest of their lives with this memory and they commit suicide.
Your comments about women and abortions show that you only know how to view people/situations in black and white---and you see women and every instance of an abortion as murder. If a woman's life is in danger from her pregnancy---her fetus does not have the right to murder her and kill itself.
"But I can't believe that any
"But I can't believe that any bishop was cavalier about this problem."
*************************************************************************
You need to go here and see for yourself how many bishops in the US alone were cavalier about the problem.
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/
For starters, click on the map and go and read about the Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Los Angeles Dioceses. And if you think it was a just a problem in large city Dioceses, click on the Spokane Diocese.
After you've spent some time on the diocesan summaries, go back to the front page of the site and click on the Bishop's Files at the top and read some of the actual correspondence from bishops to diocesan personnel about what to do with pedophile priests while trying to avoid public scandal, ie. keep it all as secret as possible.
The same modus operandi comes out in the Grand Jury reports here:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/reports.htm
Paulte, pull your head out of the sand and go to the above links and see for yourself what our "shepherds" have almost uniformly been up to in the US for the last 40 years, and then extrapolate that across the world and back at least several centuries or more.
As I've replied to you before, forgiveness is up to the victim. The church may give absolution for eternal punishment for sins, but it has no right whatsoever to shield felons from the temporal punishment coming to them here on Earth.
"But I can't believe that any
"But I can't believe that any bishop was cavalier about this problem."
*************************************************************************
You need to go here and see for yourself how many bishops in the US alone were cavalier about the problem.
http://www.bishopaccountability.org/
For starters, click on the map and go and read about the Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Los Angeles Dioceses. And if you think it was a just a problem in large city Dioceses, click on the Spokane Diocese.
After you've spent some time on the diocesan summaries, go back to the front page of the site and click on the Bishop's Files at the top and read some of the actual correspondence from bishops to diocesan personnel about what to do with pedophile priests while trying to avoid public scandal, ie. keep it all as secret as possible.
The same modus operandi comes out in the Grand Jury reports here:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/reports.htm
Paulte, pull your head out of the sand and go to the above links and see for yourself what our "shepherds" have almost uniformly been up to in the US for the last 40 years, and then extrapolate that across the world and back at least several centuries or more.
As I've replied to you before, forgiveness is up to the victim. The church may give absolution for eternal punishment for sins, but it has no right whatsoever to shield felons from the temporal punishment coming to them here on Earth.
Touche! What would we do
Touche! What would we do without this column.
Excellent review. And this synthesis leads to.........(fill in the blank)>
I don't see a "sincere and
I don't see a "sincere and gentle man". From his past to the present there is the appearance of "appearances" that present a rather sinister figure, intent on maintaining the staus quo at all costs. Unfortunately, I just don't buy it!
Why should Pope Benedict XVI
Why should Pope Benedict XVI accept responsibility? Because on the day he accepted the decision of the College of Cardinals he stopped being the man Ratzinger and became Peter. He needs to borrow the plaque Harry Truman had on his desk, "The buck stops here." If Peter can accept responsibility, confess and own the sin, make amends, and promise to reform the system that allowed for this tragedy to happen, and promise to not let it happen again, then the Church will be back on the road to re-establishing moral authority. But what are the chances of that happening? None, as long as the mafia-like Roman Curia is allowed to carry on the governance of the Church in secrecy and its Machiavellian way not sharing that governance with the Bishops of the world, much less ordinary laymen and certainly not any woman. And none of that is going to happen since the Bishops of the world are mostly yes men who won't make waves. Even if a Third Vatican Council was held we wouldn't see strong leadership out of them. The English speaking Bishops couldn't even stand up to Rome on the translation of the Roman Missal, which clearly was assigned to them by the teachings of Vatican II.
Post new comment