The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionPriest's pornography case reveals clericalism of the laity
by Jamie L Manson on Jun. 01, 2011
Scholars do it.
Activists do it.
Even educated, justice-oriented parishioners do it.
No, Cole Porter fans, I’m not talking about falling in love, but rather falling fall prey to the internalized clericalism of the laity.
What else can explain the fact that many members of the Roman Catholic laity continue to give the clergy a pass after committing crimes that would easily bring down political powerhouses and tycoons of industry?
The latest tale of the mishandling of priestly sexual misconduct comes from the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese. Exactly one year after the principal of a Catholic elementary school sent a letter of concern about the predatory behavior of Fr. Shawn Ratigan, the priest was arrested for possession of child pornography.
At issue is the fact that no diocesan official ever responded to principal Julie Hess’ concerns. It wasn’t until Ratigan attempted suicide in December -- seven months after Hess’ complaint was submitted -- that the priest was reassigned to a sisters’ community.
Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn admitted Friday that he did not read Hess’ letter, submitted May 19, 2010, until May 26, 2011 -- a week after Ratigan’s arrest.
Hess’ letter recounts over a dozen “red flag-raising” instances of the priest spending excessive time with children, inappropriately touching children and making children touch him. One father saw Ratigan rubbing circles in his daughter’s back. A mother found a pair of girl’s panties in a planter at the priest's home during a Brownie Girl Scout gardening.
The letter makes clear that Hess, as well as many teachers and parents, were very proactive not only in adhering to the diocesan guidelines for preventing sexual misconduct, but also in trying to keep the children away from the priest. Parents called their children away from him, and teachers quickly hovered near the priest when he approached the children too closely.
Their actions are commendable and one hopes that teachers and parents everywhere are modeling similar responses around suspected predators. However, I cannot help but note two troubling aspects of the story. First, it seems no one called the police. Second, parents, teachers, and school leaders did not make more noise and make greater demands for timely action. They waited and waited for a response from the chancery.
Obviously, I do not know every exact detail of what happened at that school over the past year. But this story, and the many others like it, left me wondering: if the predator in question were not a priest but were, instead, a teacher or coach, would parents and teachers have moved more quickly and aggressively to have the situation dealt with?
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.
If parents found out that a public school superintendent, rather than a bishop, neglected to read a principal’s report about a teacher that had similarly sordid claims, would they not be relentless in calling for the superintendent’s resignation and prosecution of the teacher?
And yet, Ratigan was able to function freely as a priest for years, and Finn will likely emerge unscathed from the scandal.
The St. Patrick’s saga is but one example of the fascinating fear that many Catholics seem to have of calling church leaders to accountability the way they would elected officials, educators, and other non-clerical folk. This double standard that Catholics have in dealing with the clergy, I believe, is a result of the internalized clericalism that the laity inherited as part of their Catholic inculcation.
Critics of the institutional church frequently point to the corrosive arrogance of the Catholic clergy as the root cause of so much abuse of power. It is important, however, to consider the extent to which the clericalism of the laity enables these abuses to take place, and to reflect on the multitude of ways this phenomenon affects a spectrum of Catholics, including some of our most progressive voices.
I have seen the effects of lay clericalism among professors at Catholic colleges and universities, who fret about discussing controversial issues about gender and sexuality in an academic forum. Tenured scholars, who are exponentially more educated than most Roman Catholic priests, can quickly become terrified of the reactions of bishops to their academic programs.
I have seen lay clericalism in parishes considered “prophetic” because of their commitment to social justice, service to the poor, and welcoming of marginalized Catholics. And, yet, in many cases these progressive voices will not challenge the parish priest, even when he makes decisions that compromise a parish’s legacy of advocacy.
I know many lay women and men who have labored on parish staffs and have suffered the fruits of lay clericalism. Regardless of a lay minister’s education level, years of experience, and ministerial gifts, parishioners almost always have a submissive “preferential option” for the priest -- even if they disagree strongly with his policies and practices. A lay person’s degrees and pastoral presence are no match against the power of simply being “Father.”
So often it is the clericalism of the laity, rather than the clericalism of the clergy, that undermines the power of the laity in our church.
I am not a psychologist, but I know enough about human emotions to see that many Catholics still react to the institutional church as a damaged child would react to a punishing, authoritarian parent.
Though many have rejected the paternalism of church teachings, especially on issues of sexual morality, so many Catholics have not been able to wipe away the residue of experiencing the Catholic clergy as a disapproving parent, capable of banishing us from the love of God.
In the comments section of one of the NCR reports on the Ratigan case, several readers noted that Hess would surely be fired eventually for exposing both a predator priest and the mishandling of the case by a bishop who is a favorite of traditionalists.
Responding to this claim, an anonymous commentator, seemingly connected with St. Patrick’s, responded emphatically: “If this principal catches any grief over this[,] a full riot will occur at St. Pat's[.] I will help incite it. We will not let mis-conduct by the diocese punish our excellent school and its stellar leader.”
I pray that this person’s convictions will find support within St. Patrick’s lay community.
By risking their relationship with the institutional church in order to uphold a layperson of integrity, the laity of St. Patrick’s have the opportunity to join the growing ranks of Catholic communities that refuse to collude in the hierarchy’s abuse of power, like the administration of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, Ariz.
As the tales of the institutional church’s deception and negligence continue to mount, lay Catholics must stop making themselves subservient to their imagined notions of the power of the hierarchy, and must instead allow themselves to be channels of the power of God that is made manifest through sacrifice, courage, and truthfulness.
They must recognize how their internalized clericalism may be impeding their prophetic participation in the Spirit’s unfolding work in our church.
[Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Jamie Manson's column, "Grace on the Margins", 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 "Grace on the Margins" to your list.
You are exactly right, Jamie.
You are exactly right, Jamie. I notice it in myself sometimes, although it has been slowly eroding for years - not that there was much there to begin with, fortunately. But we absolutely need to step up and out from under clericalism, or nothing will change.
Jamie, thank you for the
Jamie, thank you for the post.
I have been saying for years, without any real acceptance of the idea, that
in Ireland my parents generation were complicit in the abuse problem through their belief that absolutely nothing bad could be said of a man of the cloth.
My personal suffering as a result of this attitude was ample witness to its evil. I think today we need to be aware of the creeping infallibility
problem which I define as creeping infantilism. I believe you are referring to this also when you justifiably are amazed at the failure of adults to simply act on behalf of the innocents and not wait for a hierarchical response. They are expecting to graduate to the next step. We cannot afford to play their childish games... get with it folks ACT! Had this man been seriously challenged for his conduct and not met with ambiguous therefor tacit approval ther might have been a better outcome: not the least of which the Good Bishop would have been spared the consequences of his own infantile
response.
God Bless.
TomC.
Great column, Jamie. As a
Great column, Jamie. As a retired pastoral counselor, I'd like to say I believe that this reluctance on the part of laity to challenge clergy or institutional Church in such a way that they could "get in trouble" with them, grows out of their sense that approval by the clergy and institutional Church is their GUARANTEE that they really do have GOD'S approval as well. The thought of losing God's approval can, of course, be terrifying. The only antidote that I know of is for all of us to question that belief (that some of us virtually imbibed with our mother's milk) and grow into such a complete trust in God and God's love that we can act on what we know to be right and no longer need any outside force to guarantee our relationship with our God.
Don't know what to make of
Don't know what to make of this. As a priest, I hesitate to even be around children because I have no idea what the reaction will be. The diocesan lawyers warn us not to touch children, hug children, and never, ever, ever be in a room alone with a minor. Don't worry. If I find myself suddenly alone in a room with a minor I will exit through the nearest door, window, or wall. But I do grieve over this atmosphere of fear and suspicion. My sisters are grade school teachers and they receive the same advice from their lawyers.
Finn, of course, was wrong not to read the letter. He should be super-sensitive to these kinds of things because they will come up later to bite him. As for Ratigan, I think he really suffers from stunted sexual-emotional development, which made him more comfortable around children than adults. A number of studies have talked about this. A predator? Not sure. Maybe more of a man/child whose developmnent stopped when he was ten or twelve years old.
I sympathize with you, Father
I sympathize with you, Father Anonymous. I, too, am a teacher. I can't wait for graduation so I can give each of the graduates a big hug that I had been longing to give them for four years.
However, I have one question: How do you hear the confessions of the young if you are not in a room alone with them? Do you limit confessions only to behind the screen? If so, that is sad. I find it much more meaningful to confess face to face. And I have never been touched while in the confessional.
That you are arm-chair
That you are arm-chair analyzing Ratigan and personally giving him a pass on his repulsive, sick behavior tells me it's a good thing you stay away from children. Please continue to do so. You are completely out of touch with reality. You're not a parent, you're not a man who has made a commitment to a wife and to a family. You know nothing about children. Stay way. Stay far away.
This man, this Ratigan, is a sexual predator. We will never know what lengths he took his predatory, criminal actions to because Bishop Finn aided and abetted the destruction of evidence in the case.
That you, a priest, claim a man who took hundreds of pictures of other people's children for his own personal use, who repeatedly lifted girls above his head (and we now know he was in possession of many "up-skirt" photos of young girls), encouraged them to put their hands in his pockets, etc., you're not sure if he's a predator show that you are unfit to be around children.
Here's a clue: all those things I just described? They ARE predation! That's what a sexual predator does -- he preys on children -- he gains their trust, he looks for opportunities to be with them, and then he uses them for his own pleasure. Get it now?
This all-male, celibate priesthood model will only and always attract men who are clearly not fit to be around children. Christ made Peter, a married man, head of His Church. The Church was built on men such as Peter, not men such as Ratigan and Finn and yourself. There's a reason for that, and that reason is now stunningly clear.
Oh, for pity sakes, grow up.
Oh, for pity sakes, grow up. The world is not a series of absolutes and polarities. Your ludicrous statement, "This all-male, celibate priesthood model will only and always attract men who are clearly not fit to be around children," is so extreme and lacking in fact that everything that you say about the matter comes across as knee-jerk. So no celibate priest is fit to be around a child? What about single men and women? Confirmed bachelors? Spinster aunts? Widows and widowers? Married people who have chosen not to have children or who can't have children? Why is it then the highest incidence of sexual abuse of children is within the family? Please explain this and get off your shaky high horse!
Whatever else this priest may
Whatever else this priest may be, he did not molest a child. He had kiddie porn on his computer just like the Nova Scotia bishop did. The difference though is that the Nova Scotia bishop imported it into his country of Canada. And it should be noted that the Nova Scotia bishop did not molest a child.
From the Catholic angle, all pornography is illicit but from the secular angle only kiddie porn is. I just have to ask the question out loud. Should people be arrested for simply possessing kiddie porn? To me the answer is no. Not because I see nothing wrong with this type of pornography but because this involves excessive force by the state.
It is also a violation of civil liberties according to the ACLU. I rarely if ever agree with the ACLU & I would not posit a "right" to view or posses this kind of stuff. But I would have to question the right of the state to invade a person's home & computer to try & find this kind of thing.
Personally, I think all pornography should be outlawed but the simple viewing or downloading or purchase of such material to include sharing it with others non commercially should not be criminalized. In terms of the present legal situation which only outlaws kiddie porn, the state should prosecute the production, distribution & sale of such pornography. They should go after people who run websites for this kind of porn. The most severe penalty should go for the people who actually use the kids to make the porn.
According to the Kansas City
According to the Kansas City Police, Ratigan was uploading his pictures to the internet. That is known as distribution and meets your requirement for prosecution.
Bishop Lahey not only had kiddie porn on his computer, he also had more than one passport stamp for Thailand and the Phillipines. That flagged the customs people. Gee, what do you think he might have been doing in Thailand and the Phillipines?
I concede the point. Any
I concede the point. Any distribution even not fot profit should be prosecuted. Also, I was not aware that there is a lawsuit against him which claims actual abuse when I wrote this.
Even if his "only" sin is
Even if his "only" sin is viewing child pornography, he is complicit with the evil person(s) who used children to take those photographs. It should have been (actually was??) obvious to numerous adults around this priest that his behavior toward children was quite out of bounds in a number of respects. They should have taken action beyond writing to the bishop. That the bishop did nothing is outrageous (whether he read the letter, or more shockingly, did not).
To view it is evil, I don't
To view it is evil, I don't dispute that. I was trying to make a legal point here. The only reason to prosecute the simple viewing would be the premise that it forms a market for it. However, this needs to be bounced off the question of the invasion of privacy. Legally, I think the invasion of privacy trumps. However, this whole thing is very debatable. A rigourous prosecution of production, distribution & sales, to include websites should dry the source up pretty much, I think.
" Legally, I think the
" Legally, I think the invasion of privacy trumps. "
Do you really think for one second that Jesus would share your opinion as it appies to an innocent child? Do you not remember a comment He made about 2,000 years ago having to do with a millstone?
Please, tell me, what is
Please, tell me, what is 'kiddie porn'? Is it pornography for children, like 'kiddie clothes' or 'kiddie movies'? Your choice of words indicates that you still do not have the faintest idea about the devastation that child abuse (sexual or otherwise) creates. And really,every child that is abused either in 'real time' or 'in virtual space' is a real child, and those looking at these pictures, and purchasing them are as guilty as the ones that provide them and ruin the lives of so many chidren. This is really no 'kiddies game'.
How can you say you're sure
How can you say you're sure this priest did not molest a child when a little girl's panties were found in a planter at his home? You must have your head buried in the sand.
Paulte, I have to say I'm
Paulte, I have to say I'm surprised at your view that's all.
What does Canon Law say, it does cover bestiality so that must happen within the church, does that also come under the inclusion of questioning one's rights.
What a subculture we cater for in the Confessional, no wonder sex-abuse crimes are given absolution.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the meeting of Christ if you ask me, it's all debauchery.
I'm talking about civil law
I'm talking about civil law here from a libertarian perspective. I'm also talking about the practical aspect of allowing unrestricted pornograpy except in one case & then throwing the book at people in that case alone. That's kind of a disconnect in my view.
From the Catholic angle of course all pornography is evil. I'm not questioning that. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the feminists in the Church don't enjoy S&M porn so long as the women are whipping the men!
Uh, paulte, even the most
Uh, paulte, even the most selfish and uncaring of libertarians (which, given how selfish and uncaring libertarianism is to begin with, is pretty darned selfish and uncaring...) base their beliefs on the concept of consenting adults. The reason child pornography is the exception is because children are not consenting adults. Duh.
Paulte, this post was beneath
Paulte, this post was beneath you and the occasional dignity and fairmindedness you show. I would never want to whip my husband, unless he wanted me to.
Oh, thats right, Benedict had
Oh, thats right, Benedict had to close a monastery over an instance like that didn't he.
The women didn't come across as feminist's though, more like subservience to me, whether at the feet of the clergy, in the bed or in the kitchen.
What clergyman would want to give that up unless they're into "kiddie porn" of course.
If you possess child
If you possess child pornography you are complicit in the sexual abuse of a minor. You are keeping the pornographers in business. To claim pursuing those in possession of illegal material is excessive force on the part of the state is seriously messed up.
The lengths some folks go to in order to defend the idealistic notion that the Church is somehow above us all is really, really deranged.
Anyone who thinks there's nothing wrong with collecting child pornography seriously needs to be investigaged. No, really, you do.
For God's sake paulte, there
For God's sake paulte, there is a very simple difference here!!! In the case of adult porn, there is a willful choice made by an individual 18 years of age or older. In the case of kiddie porn, there is pornographic material being produced involving a person that the law declares is incapable of giving knowlegeable consent.
I've watched you post over and over again, and it seems that with regard to children under the age of 18, you are constitutionally incapable of understanding the concept of statutory rape. I am seriously beginning to doubt that you ever had a daughter or grand daughter (I had neither), but you sure as heck don't seem to get the concept of statutory rape, even if it is "consensual".
Incisive analysis. I await
Incisive analysis. I await the riot in church if the principal is in any way the victim of retribution. Next, the civil authroities need to bring criminal charges against the vicar and the bishop.
Excellent summary. For
Excellent summary. For perspective, suppose the Hess letter, pictures, computers, actions, and people were all associated with the Kansas City xxxx Co., Inc., headed by Mister Bob Finn. How would that change the situation? Should it?
It is unlikely Mr. Bob Finn would have published a pastoral letter on "… the Dignity of the Human Person and the Dangers of Pornography" as the bishop did (2/21/07). Otherwise, the situation is one of several people interacting so as to enable repeated activity which, if not felonious to amateur eyes, is flagrantly "inappropriate" by commonly accepted community standards (see Hess letter for standards). The issue is public safety and the welfare of local children and should be treated as such, independent of the clothes and titles the collaborators wear. Expectations of appropriate action from the institutional Church are unjustifiable, given what we have seen in Philadelphia, Belgium, Ireland, Kenya, and elsewhere.
http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/Pastoral-02-07.pdf
Clergy are charged with
Clergy are charged with teaching, sanctifying and governing. That is not clericalism, that is their vocation. No matter how educated a layperson may be, the priest is the pastor of the parish and the final canonical authority in his parish. Therefore, when a priest makes a decision, the decision is made and arguing is no longer appropriate. What may be appropriate is to respectfully ask Father why he decided to do what he decided, but challenging him, as you suggest, is inappropriate.
The Catholic Church is hierarchical, I'm sorry if no one bothered to tell you that before now. In order to function in a hierarchy, each member must know what their specific place is, and how they relate to those above and below them in the hierarchy. It also requires humility, on the part of those at the top and those at the bottom, and everyone in between. It requires the pastor to acknowledge that he does not know everything and thus seek consultation and advice. It requires the laity to acknowledge that it is not their vocation to govern the Church, to offer advice and consultation when requested and to accept that, no matter how educated they may be, ultimately the Church is governed by her clergy.
Sadly, humility is a charism that is often lacking in our Church today, among both clergy and laity alike.
You must be kidding! I’ve
You must be kidding! I’ve endured years of dysfunctional clergy, and been the victim of many decisions made with the arrogant mindset that you describe. No wonder so many intelligent Catholics have walked away from the Catholic Church.
Wow! I am stunned by your
Wow! I am stunned by your willingness to live as a serf in the Church here in the 21st century, CWG. In view of the fact that all of us were made in he image and likeness of God and the Holy Spirit lives within and guides us all, I submit that it is the "place" of every Christian to take responsibility to see that Jesus' desire that the innocent be protected be lived out at all times and in all places. Humility is a beautiful virtue but it ought never to be used as an excuse to do nothing during those times when any member of the hierarchy may have had a temporary lapse from perfection that has allowed something dangerous to occur or continue. And shouldn't the members of the hierarchy, themselves, also practice the virtue of humility since, as far as I know, the Church has never taught that they are incapable of ever making a mistake?
The priesthood has imploded.
The priesthood has imploded. The games over, boys.
The Vatican offers a richer
The Vatican offers a richer view. Note "duty" and attention "to common advantage".
Canon 212 -
"§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they [the Christian faithful] possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PU.HTM#FU
Jesus was not a worshiper of
Jesus was not a worshiper of hierarchies. The church is a human organization with a structure developed by human beings. That structure has changed over the centuries. It can change again.
Churches must not change if
Churches must not change if they are to retain any credibility as divinely ordained.If they admit to being "a human organization with a structure developed by human beings" there goes their claim that God needs you to pick them over any other.
For the life of me I don't
For the life of me I don't understand why a self admitted non Christian as yourself hangs around here trying to tell devoted followers of Christ what the Church of Christ entails. You should retitle yourself Louis XIVth. You would have as much relevence!
Much of what you have
Much of what you have described, "CWG", is a result of ecclesial development, which means that much of what you have described was not part of the primitive churches. True, they had leadership, but the leaders' role was acknowledged because the leaders demonstrated leadership in the first place!!!
Today's formal leaders too often as not confuse giving orders and behaving in paternalistic fashion with leadership.
Humility is derived from a root word associated with earth, ground, etc. In other words, genuine humility is being real, dealing with reality, standing on firm or solid ground in a given situation.
Humility is not, on the other hand, allowing oneself to be walked upon by others. It is not behaving like an ecclesial doormat.
Sad to say, too many ordained Catholic leaders today forget they crap like the rest of us. When these guys remember their roots, they stand a chance of coming around, so to speak. They stand a chance of regaining their credibility, their moral authority --- which they've lost.
Respect is a two-way street.
Hey CWG, The Middle Ages are
Hey CWG,
The Middle Ages are over. I suggest you get a new calendar. This constant sexual abuse of minors is a serious problem. The clergy must be held accountable for their actions. Ordination does not give one a free pass for illegal behavior.
The laity should just go to their bishop or pastor and say fix this or we will no longer provide financial support. The laity provides the finances the keep the Church going. Want to get results? Hit them in the pocketbook. Works all the time.
I've often heard how "the
I've often heard how "the church is hierarchical",with the implied comment of "accept this, 'cause that's what is is..." Yet, I question this. I question the many, many interpretations of Scripture, by the Roman Hierarchy, that always seems to favor their political dominance over the Church. To be blunt, they reflect the bias of those in power. And, much modern sociological & psychological research strongly supports the idea that Power blinds those who have it. Sadly, those with the most power become the most blind, and thereby, most easily corrupted by their power. Therefore, a hierarchical structure will always favor those on top, and more importantly, will always justify their character defects. The only way to break free from this is to share power, and this too, has been rather amply proven in the social sciences. This means dialogue, which must invite all parties to the table. Sadly, I fear that the Church will never do this, thereby alienating the very people that the Church was called to reach out to with the Good News.
Amen!
Amen!
The Dark Ages lot have been
The Dark Ages lot have been abusing people for centuries. It is only due to recent advances in communication and more freedom of information that we are beginning to learn about the Pervert Priests.
This is the lot that burnt "witches" for a period of more than 300 years.
Their own "sacred" texts such as the Bible are one long list of abuse, human and animal sacrifice, slaughter, wars, death, hatred for women, hatred for homosexuals, etc, etc, etc.
No wonder reading these sort of texts the minds of the Pervert Priests are screwy.
Send them back to the Dark Ages where they belong.
THANKS. GOOD POINT. The
THANKS. GOOD POINT. The church has ingrained in Catholics a mythology about priests. Here are the myths that I have outlined before and are worth repeating here to promote discussion:
1) They act "in persona Christi" (like the person of Christ. Most don't even come close.
2) There is an "ontologically change" when men are ordained priests. Something is supposed to happen to them that makes them closer to God. No way! Men who are ordained priests have the same behavior, characteristics, and humanity as before they were ordained.
3) Priests sacrifice to serve the faithful. It is no big sacrifice for most. They get free food, shelter, clothing, medical care, travel, education, pension, etc. for life. Many diocesan priests who serve in rich parishes have become very wealthy (No vows of poverty here!).
4) Priests are asexual. That is they don't have a sexual identity. Actually, many are homosexual priests (more than 50 percent by some estimates). Many homosexual and heterosexual priests act out their sexuality at some point in their priesthood.
5) Men are ordained priests for life. They truth is that the priesthood has been in a constant churn for centuries. They come in and they go out. Think of all the young priests that you've met who have "mysteriously disappeared."
6) Priests are chosen by God. Even the very bad ones? Priests have committed every crime, immorality in the book.
7) Priests just want to serve at the lowest level. Actually, many dream and aspire to become bishops so they have even greater personal benefits and prestige.
8) Foreign priests from Nigeria and other third-world countries come to the United States as missionaries. Actually, they seek to leave their impoverish nations, get a good position in the U.S. and then help their relatives to immigrate here. It is the old axiom, "one son has to become a priest to elevate the status of the family," so that is how we got so many Irish priests decades ago.
9) Priests never reveal or exploit the sacrament of confession. How do you think the child-abusing priests knew which adolescents were having sexual identity issues?
10) Priests are a happy lot. In some circumstances, but in others they are a squabbling, jealous lot. Too, they gossip an awful lot among themselves.
The big truth that many Catholics are becoming to realize is that clericalism in the church has gotten so rotten that the priests control the church and think the church exists for their benefit.
Not included here are the myths about the origins of the hierarchical priesthood or the myths about celibate priests being better priests or whether the priesthood is a male thing designated by God.
As a final footnote, I want to testify that there were good priests historically and there are presently. The priesthood can be a positive force for humanity and the church. However, we have to eliminate the myths, realize the truths, and reform the hierarchical priesthood. There is no other option if we love the church.
Can't imagine why a young
Can't imagine why a young person or a married person or a female person would read a comment like this and even want to be a priest. I read this person's low opinion and wanted to simply to quit. If I had a lot of parishioners like this in my parish, I would quit, because I am condemned and despised from the start and somehow have to climb a steep ladder to earn this person's stingy regard.
Most of the priests I know try to do a good job according to their talents and understanding of what it means to be a priest. They all know they are sinners first and priests second. The older priests all wanted to follow Christ the Servant. That was their ecclesiology. They take the "in persona Christi" stuff with a grain of salt because they know it hints of clericalism. But then, occasionally, they have a moment (usually during confession or administering the sacrament of the sick) that they really do feel like they stood in Christ's merciful place.
Younger priests stress liturgical celebration and church as institution. And they take the "in persona Christi" stuff very seriously. They know that people's behavior changes when they are around their priests, so they cannot really count on an honest give and take between people who are somehow peers in their baptism in Christ. And so, apart from their priesthood friends, they have a real sense of isolation and loneliness. The priests in my diocese either work in ones or twos in parishes that used to have three or more priests, or they work in scattered small parishes where sometimes it is an hour's drive to the closest priest.
And as a priest, I have to struggle with my own disillusionment with lay people. So much spiritual laziness. If my sermon is more than ten minutes long, the criticisms begin. A "good Mass" is a "short Mass." I plead with them for a minimum kind of prayer life, but only a few are interested. Poll after poll has shown that they have the same (or lower) scale of moral values as a sincere atheist. Etc. Maybe we should form a circle and shoot each other.
Oh please, Anonymous Father,
Oh please, Anonymous Father, let's not even think about going that far! If you are just there, present and patiently waiting to welcome any one who comes to a point where they want to develop a deeper prayer life, that is enough. It's God's job to touch their hearts and help them begin to yearn for "more"; it is your job to be there, ready to help them on their journey when they reach out for you.
I can tell you that it is the
I can tell you that it is the priest culture that sets them apart, not their humanity. Yes, the disillusionment works both ways but it is the clerical baggage that Catholic lay people don't want to take any more. That's why the lay people want only the 10 minute sermon, 30 minutes at Mass (leave right after communion) and that's it. And, yes, those young priests in their cassocks take the myths very seriously and the problem we have in the church will only grow worse with them. Please become a reform-minded priest.
So leave already. We work
So leave already. We work hard for our money. If it's such a big whiny problem for you, get lost. Why should we support the likes of you, Mr. Special? If you were my kid, I'd smack your fresh mouth for that bratty little diatribe. Grow up. Man up. What a whiner you are.
In other words, priests are
In other words, priests are human.
Is the misunderstanding of priests the fault of the priests or those who have identified them as paragons of virtue? I am not excusing any criminal acts. Being misunderstood is not an excuse to commit crimes of any variety. I am just asking if this could be at the core of so many problems with priests.
Allowing priests to marry, allowing women priests, etc., is not going to solve this problem. The solution is to allow priests to be human, to make errors, to sin, and not be faulted beyond that of other humans for being so.
(And that includes going to jail for committing crimes.)
I know many priests. None are perfect. They are "in persona Christi" only during Mass and when hearing confession. Some are arrogant; some are humble. But in a parish, they are the CEOs, whether we like it or not. Their word is the final word. And the buck stops with them, unless they are simply being obedient to the Bishop.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that they should get away with crimes. No. They should be treated like criminals if they commit crimes.
Actually, most priests
Actually, most priests perpetuate the myths of the priesthood. That is how it is taught to kids, that is how it is taught to lay persons. Yes, married priests or women priests are no panacea. However, such new directions might help break up the celibate men's club that perpetuates myths that later disillusion Catholics when they became better educated. I heard testimony of one abused boy at a trial who said, "I thought he was like Christ." What has to happen is real reform, back to the time when members of the church selected their own priests and bishops, married or not, and everyone knew them well as one of the people of God...repeat: one of the people.
We are not God's equals,and
We are not God's equals,and we need a consciousness of our lack of entitlement to decide the divine laws that bind us.A duty to obey a hierarchy may not feel good,but it is good for us.
Okay, was it good for people
Okay, was it good for people to follow hierarchs like Jim Jones at Jonestown, David Koresh of Branch Davidians, Warren Jeffs of Mormon polygamists, or any of our disgraced bishops? Is it good to follow corrupt people or is it better to discerned for ourselves who to follow (and listen carefully to their critics)?
"We are not God's equals." No
"We are not God's equals."
No kiddin'!
Now, if only the hierarchs would apply this truth to themselves!!!
Louise, taking your comment
Louise, taking your comment as it stands.
"Duty to obey a hierarchy may not feel good, but it is good for us".
That the hierarchy has a duty of care to us, the "subjects", man, woman and child, appears to have little consequence.
Not being God's equal is something needed to be born in the consciousness of their lack of entitlement as well.
A many of the investors do
A many of the investors do not like the CEOs they are getting.
The pastor is always CEO?
The pastor is always CEO? This is not really true and depends on the priest. As a long time pastor, I try to work with and through the Pastoral Council. I tell the Council and the parish that I will try to follow their recommendations. I have never simply acted on my own and I have never refused to do what the Council recommends. We know that long after we are gone, the parishioners will still be there. It is "our" parish together. Many, many other pastors feel and do the same.
Good pastor: There too few of
Good pastor: There too few of you!
Canon law forbids pastors to
Canon law forbids pastors to be subordinate to their councils.Any pastors who are as you describe are violating their duties.
So Anonymous, it's OK to lust
So Anonymous, it's OK to lust after and run after women and "get a little on the side" between "acts" of being Christ in persona and all being being human.
It certainly confirms what one was once told in the confessional, "all things in moderation": And no wonder he had a trail of women in tow, with unsuspecting husbands out earning the mighty dollar to pay for the meals he was sharing at the family table.
There's a hell of a misundertanding in allowing priests making errors, to sin and not be faulted beyond that of other humans.
That's why there is no stipulation against fathering a child I suppose, it's just a human thing.
Dear God, who want's a priesthood such as this, certainly not the mothers who conceived them, the woman used to bear their child or relevant cuckolded husbands.
It's a church that rules with contradictions, including the faithful who accept it.
Clericalism:Adverb A
Clericalism:Adverb
A fancy-smancy word for "coverup".
Jamie, thank you for your
Jamie, thank you for your article. I agree with what you have written. Robert Finn didn't read the letter until a year later? If that is true what is wrong with the people who do read his mail? Is his mail being sensored? And why are those people still there? But more importantly what is he doing about it now. Little I would wager. Until he takes the ultimate responsibility for this and someone above him does something about it we will continue to go our merry way and little will be done.
For the few clergy who say anything about women priests, equality of women in the church, moral issues that are not sexual, married clergy, etc. and they are slapped down very quickly. But if they, the clergy do anything against children, exhibits any signs of pedophilia, hides someone who should be removed, or a host of other violations of the same order and the actions are swept under the carpet. And by clergy I mean any member of the clergy, from the top on down.
Why does this continue? In my opinion not too many of us have the nerve or desire to confront the clergy. We, as you say have had the sacredness of the clergy driven into us since we were children. We are afraid to say anything that contradicts what we were taught. The "good father" is never wrong.
Sad to say that until some justice is visited upon the leaders of the church we will just continue upon our merry way. How do we go about getting these people out of their positions, cardinals, bishops, and priest who continue in their current status and think that they are immune? It is sad that their is no laity revolution. And I am as guilty as my neighbor for not acting. Catholic yes but I having a growing abhorance to what is happening in the church today.
Exactly... Anyone who
Exactly...
Anyone who suspects, has knowledge, or has witnessed sex crimes (of any nature) against kids should contact police. Just pick up the phone a dial 911, let the police handle it, not church officials. Sex crimes, however old, should be investigated by the independent professionals in law enforcement, not the biased amateurs in church offices.
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, 636-433-2511
snapjudy@gmail.com
"Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests" and all clergy
http://www.snapnetwork.org/
I find it sad that Ms. Manson
I find it sad that Ms. Manson can be so judgmental. Since there was no proof of child abuse, since, as she noted, the staff and parents responded and acted to protect children and to communicate with the bishop about the situation, how is it Ms. Manson makes some huge leap to claim the people involved have an internalized clericalism? Ms. Manson is only a commenter not a judge of human character or of any internal perspective or image. Worse yet, she makes her claims based upon articles she read, not any kind of indepth interview with the persons involved. She is not a psychologist, social worker, mind reader, or confessor. Internalized clericalism? She may want to pause and do some self-reflecting.
While agreeing with your
While agreeing with your statement I would also note that Jamie Manson’s chosen field of study, human sexuality, is not at all apparent in the article. For example, Ms. Manson might have led the conversation on whether or not Fr. Ratigan chose his orientation or it is innate followed by a conversation on when it is appropriate to condemn a particular orientation. Would she not have been an expert voice in the equality of all sexualities?
So we're only supposed to
So we're only supposed to write about our academic specialties?
Here's what I learned from those who study human sexuality:
An orientation is toward one's equals, people capable of consent and mutuality. A disorder is toward people with whom one cannot have an equal relationship. The line of reasoning you used is the one that would defend child molesters, but it is not widely used by people who believe in ethical and healthy sexual behavior. You might want to look up the work of Marie Marshall Fortune.
The "equality of all
The "equality of all sexualities" is an opinion Jamie Manson believes is right,and Catholic theology teaches is wrong.All Catholic clergy have a duty to convince as many people as possible that Jamie Manson is wrong,and to live their lives in conformity with that belief.
Ms. Manson is waaaaay out of
Ms. Manson is waaaaay out of line to begin to blame Ms. Hess. Given the culture of that diocese under Archbishop Finn, it was more than enough that she penned a letter to the Archbishop and trustingly gave it to the Vicar General, no doubt NOT knowing that the Vicar General had been creditably accused of exposing his genitals to a possible seminarian. Whose fault was that?
For her to be required to go to the police because of creepy behavior would have meant that every time some guy stood leering through a chain link fence at 8 year old girls in soccer practice more than 5 minutes would have to be reported immediately to the police.
If Ms Hess was guilty of "clericalism", it was only because she understood as a lay person, especially as a female lay person, she knew exactly where she stood in the eyes of Archbp Finn, who had removed a Religious Sister who had a long track record of dishing out priests around the diocese to be replaced by a priest with a bad reputation, unbeknownced to anyone else but Finn.
Jamie wrote: "...many
Jamie wrote: "...many Catholics still react to the institutional church as a damaged child would react to a punishing, authoritarian parent."
Yes, it is a learned helplessness that goes beyond indoctrination... it more closely resembles Stockholm Syndrome — a survival mechanism that is markedly observed in rigidly patriarchal cultures as a societal phenomena, not just overt hostage situations.
.
In the RCC, a self-perpetuating group of men (the clergy caste) determine the rules, what is sin and the degrees of sin, who is deemed to be a sinner, and then granting or withholding forgiveness or punishment as they see fit. The laity caste is viewed as having no legitimate input or decision-making process — they exist to obey and faun over the clergy. The entire system is geared to early indoctrination in deference and eagerness to please the clergy caste (the supposed holders of the "keys") as a ticket to heaven. The hierarchy no longer have the power to imprison or execute, yet paradoxically, many laypersons continue to behave as if they do... so tenacious is this syndrome.
.
If or when the laity will finally snap out of this syndrome is anyone's guess... just how bad does criminal abuse have to get? All of this coincides with a Vatican and its ultra-conservative bishops endeavoring to impose even more harsh controls over laity while continuing to foot-drag and cover-up their own sordid crimes.
.
While I certainly agree that
While I certainly agree that the delays in addressing Fr. Ratigan's horrific behavior are unspeakably terrible, to put part of the blame on the shoulders of the laity is a bit of an unfair leap, in my opinion. Having had personal experience with reporting behavior even more disgusting than Ratigan's, I know all too well that the voices of the laity are often not heard. Who are we to know that parents, teachers, and others did not try to reach out to the authorities? Perhaps they did and were not heard or taken seriously. We just don't know. My gut tells me that the St. Patrick's community is in great pain over this; implying blame may not be the most charitable tactic. They need our prayers and support.
In my own parish, there is recent upheaval over some disagreements with Church teaching. The pastor has made it clear that his word stands, and that those who disagree are distancing themselves from the Church and the parish.
You draw the comparison between priests and other lay leaders, suggesting that action would have been swifter if Fr. Ratigan's behavior had been done by a lay person. While I agree that action may have been swifter, I do not fault the laity for this. Church power structures seem so impermeable. It's likely that the same amount of "noise" by teachers and parents would have led to swifter action if the person in question had been a lay person rather than a priest. But I suspect that at least part of this difference could be attributed to a greater openness of lay power structures to feedback, complaints, and dialogue. At my parish, when I have brought up concerns that are important to me, I've been told by the pastor that he NEVER wants to hear any complaints or concerns. He is simply not open. I am sure he's not the only one who feels this way. And, being pastor, he has the right, however misguided, to believe and act as he wishes. There is no room for dialogue. This past Sunday in a homily, my pastor basically told people, "If you're not getting what you want from this parish, find another one." This is the culture we are up against.
Yes, the church in the minds
Yes, the church in the minds of the priests does not belong to the laity. Yet you find some lay bloggers here occasionally who are just fine with that attitude. That attitude, of course, caused the Reformation upheavel in Christianity but it persists to this day.
Thank goodness for that
Thank goodness for that principal. He should be promoted to vicar general. Finn should resign.
But why did the NCR never call for Mahoney's resignation, imprisonment, banishment etc.?
Liberal incompetence is no different than conservative incompetence. Just ask the victims.
She. SHE! The principal is
She. SHE! The principal is a woman, her name is Julie Hess.
And she would make a better
And she would make a better bishop than Finn.
You are right Jamie, the
You are right Jamie, the laity gives out free passes to the criminals in the hierarchy,when the red hats excommunicate a hospital or neglect to read a letter for over a year concerning a clerical preditor. The early church did not need these guys and now it is obvious we don't need them either. They can't hide their arrogance any longer. Imagine a church without the fakes like Egan, Olmsted,Bruskewitz, Sasa, Murphy, Burke, Law, Mahoney,McCormack, Rigali, Bevelaqua and Finn.
The laity can't "give out"
The laity can't "give out" anything. They have absolutely no power in the church except the power to withhold money or to leave. That is why so many of the people who care have left: they saw they had no real recourse and voted with their feet. The churches thus have a larger proportion of apathetic people who believe anything Father says.
Well said! I would like to
Well said! I would like to offer an example where laity were active and did get rid of a priest who was cultivating a "discipleship following". This group was Oblate Associates. The pastor was a manipulating, often absent and money hungry priest who did violence to previous experiences of the parishioners. The Oblate Associates met with him and there was a showdown. The pastor developed some medical issues that some "disciples" claim were precipitated by this confrontation. The pastor was quickly removed. There was great disunity and disruption caused by this pastor being removed. The Oblate Associates suffered much rejection. The outcome: a forward looking priest of the Diocese applied for and received the appointment as pastor. Change is now going in a quite different direction.
Post new comment