Is there a Gorbachev in the Catholic church?

There once was one. My great uncle from a Midwest state had two PHD's:
Philisophy from the Sorbonne and Psychology from CUA; a long time ago. He was first to try to establish Mental Hygenie classes in the local Catholic High Schools. He endured some difficulties but did find a home as a Rector in the local Seminary. At his best,he would have understood the psychological and socialogical complexities while at the same time comprehending the issues that arise when a priest thinks out of the box in the Church system.
He knew what it was like to have been put under edict. And for awhile thought of becoming a Jesusit.

I hope there is someone out here now that could and would do what needs to be done.

But please don't forget the female side. St. Catherine of Sienna did a very good job with responding to Vatican issues in her time. Maybe someone like her is out there as well.

Well, assuming John XXIII was the most recent Gorbachev, then Rome is consistent in following Moscow in the years following their respective times. Just as Rome has gone regressive, Putin has moved Russia in similar directions that Ratingzer and Wojtyła have done, which is to give the people less of a voice.

As much as Rome is in denial, the Church is at a crossroads. There is no choice but let a paradigm shift move through the Church as the old ways have become unsustainable due to the endless sex abuse cover ups.

Cdl Martin in Ireland ?

Cdl Schonborn in Austria ?

God Bless

This is a flawed reading of the facts, and a Gorbachev wouldn't satisfy critics.

Look at the cases of Murphy et al. Due to the complexities of canon law, trials take a very long time, and took even longer before then Cardinal Ratzinger's reform of the process. Trials that took a long time are right now taken as proof of a cover-up or even of a condoning child abuse, when, at the Curial level at least, it is simply a result of the accused's rights to a free trial and due process. The critics don't want a Gorbachev, they want us to have a Stalin; i.e., someone who will purge out everyone accused of a crime without a trial or due process.

We wouldn't hold the President accountable when accused child molesters aren't swiftly found guilty and punished in secular courts. Why do we hold the Pope accountable for the same thing?

...or a Martin Luther. I used to think that the Vatican resistance to change was based on a profound understanding of the implications and consequences of change. With the responses to the recent sex scandals, particularly, I think that there is a combination with a mass collective stupidity (of the scotosis kind - radical intellectual blind spots or a pathological absence of insight even when overwhelming information and data is presented in an unmistakable configuration or format) in an otherwise normal intellect.

Some years ago, an ocean scientist speculated that the demise of the cod could be triggered by diminished numbers because the reproductive "intelligence" of the specis resided in the school, the bio-mass itself. Or maybe it is akin to a reverse in-breeding - dominant appeal, inward to the clergy and upwards to hierarchy, to a certain type of male genetically weeds out perceptual capacity and ristricts brain function within certain limits and directons. The hierarchical "bio-mass" is so diluted and polluted that it does not have the capacity to do more than squeal defensively.

Over the Easter weekend I "fell upon" the oath imposed upon theologians required to teach in catholic universities; an oath, purported to be the oath of a new bishop (New York Times archival reproduction); scaned once again John Paul II's "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", Ratzinger's response to critics of OS, and finally "Ad Tuendam Fidem". These documents represent radical, fundamentalist mind control that is inhuman. They seem virtually sacriligious in reducing the human person to an automaton and the role of Bishops, as animal herders in the service the papacy.

What does all this say about me...and you?

A Gorbachev on the inside needs a Reagan on the outside.

Just when you think the Vatican's response to this tragedy can not get any worse, it does! The Vatican has only one response to scandal: circle the wagons and shoot the messenger. That strategy did not work so well for Bernard Law in 2002. Not surprisingly, it isn't working so well for the Vatican in 2010. Either the Vatican gets a clue about elementary public relations or it will remain a laughing-stock for decades to come.

This is where the celibate clerical culture is so pernicious. The guys who run the Vatican--and yes, they are all guys--are so insulated from public opinion that they have no idea what the world is thinking or care. If these guys actually had wives or, better still, if some of the people with decision-making power were women, we would not be going through this crisis.

In his autobiography, John XXIII said when he was a seminarian he simply pretended females did not exist. The guys who run the Vatican simply pretend anyone who is not a priest does not exist.

Steve

Once again, someone at the NCR is half right. The perfect storm of sexual abuse of young children, primarily adolescent boys, took place after decades of "clericalism" in which priests could do no wrong followed by an "anti-clericalism" where priests ran in the opposite direction and sought closer relationships with the people they served. From "Fr Smith" to "Call me Joe" and by the way, I want to take a group of high school boys to the lake along with some beer to better relate with them. The parents, still trusting the priests too much, never imagining such horrific actions possible, granted their children a chance to be with Father. What could be better? Add in a time of hightened sexual promiscuity, lax standards in seminaries and a lack of confidence in the Catholic Church's teachings and you have the perfect storm. It is the strict clericalism followed by the nonsense in the late 60s and 70s, much of which NCR still supports, that created it. It is no accident that the high point of these sinful actions were in the mid 1970s.

I worked for the Bell System 30 years starting in the 50s. AT&T was the largest employer, largest cap, largest revenues and we thought it was forever.. That AT&T no longer exists. It was taken over by the remenent of baby bells and renamed at&t. I and you saw the Soviet empire end while we were eating lunch. Maybe we are watching the Vatican/Papacy ending up as the Bishop of Rome. About as influential as the Patriarch of Constantinople. nice but with limited worldwide influence and heft. Maybe we are seeing the beginning of a newer version of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Will someone step up? Watch and Pray... watch and pray.. .

Very interesting and intelligent discussion Maureen. I agree with your friend that the Catholic Church needs someone with a clear idea about how to change the culture of protecting the institution regardless how stupid or even criminal their actions happen to be. When Vatican II was in session we had a chance to bring about reform to the structure of the Church, but unfortunately the insiders got control after the open debates were over and the forward thinking leaders went back home. I am not sure that this Pope is the one to change the structure of top town orgnization, since he was one of the advisors at the original session that wrote several conservative tracts which were against the opening of the Church windows to the world. The clerical culture must change and the people in the pews must have more influence. I believe that is what Jesus had is mind when he taught his apostles while he was preaching on earth. I saw a photo of the Mass in St. Peter's and if Jesus came down he might again throw the "money changers and power brokers out of the Temple. God bless the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.