The Independent News Source
NCR classifieds - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Divided loyalties: an incredible situation
by Joan Chittister on Mar. 17, 2010
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionFor all the certainty about the facts of the case, there is still an aura of discontent everywhere about the situation surrounding clerical sex abuse in the church. No one disputes the data now; everyone disputes the nature of the problem. And worse than that, the data simply keeps piling up on all sides.
First, the world called it an "American problem." As in, those Americans are a wild bunch anyway, what else can you expect?" The Vatican went so far as to dismiss the issue as simply another demonstration of American exaggeration -- what the Irish call the American tendency to be "over the top."
Then Ireland found itself engulfed in the problem and suddenly the outrage was no longer seen as "over the top." On the contrary, it became a display of integrity. Nor were the numbers seen as being exaggerated by the media. On the contrary, the numbers of child victims, the world began to understand, had, if anything, been minimized.
Now, the boil has broken in Europe, too: in the Netherlands, in Austria, in Germany, and, oh yes, in the Vatican, as well.
Now, the United States is no longer seen as being hysterical about a non-problem but early in its confrontation of it, also a decidedly American trait.
But what, precisely, is "it?" What is the real problem?
Note well: After stories of the first few high-profile cases of serial rapes and molestations and their unheard of numbers died down, the focus shifted away from individual clerical rapists to the unmasking of what was now obviously a systemic problem. This prevailing practice of episcopal cover-ups, of moving offenders from one parish to another rather than expose them either to legal accountability or to moral censure in the public arena, occupied the spotlight. It was a practice that saved the reputation of the church at the expense of children. It traded innocence for image.
But we know all of that. So why doesn't all of this just settle down and go away? Why won't these people -- these survivors -- "just forget about it," some people said.
The answers to that question is both personal and social.
For some, of course, the need to expose their experiences comes out of the need to heal themselves by reclaiming a sense of control over their lives. To stop living in the shadow of victimhood and powerlessness. For others of them, it was because, having had their secret shame exposed, they now found the courage themselves to speak out about the unspeakable ghost that had for so long haunted their lives.
But it is also possible that the survivors go on drawing our attention to the situation because, this time, consciously or unconsciously, they are trying to warn us of a second aspect of the problem, still largely undefined, that is at least as serious -- even the incubator, in fact -- of the obvious issues of cover-up and concealment.
This time, however, it is Ireland, not America, that is ripping away the veil from this even deeper dimension, the one that moves beyond the problems of sexual repression and institutional face-saving. The unmasking of this context requires changes in the church that are in ways more serious -- and certainly as important -- as is the awareness of the danger of the sexual abuse itself.
The dilemma that really threatens the future of the church is a distorted notion of the vow of obedience and the tension it creates between loyalty to the Gospel and loyalty to the institution -- translate: "system."
In this case, the problem swirls around Ireland's Primate, Cardinal Sean Brady, a good man with a good heart and a good reputation. Until now. In 1975, then Fr. Sean Brady, a newly certified canon lawyer and secretary to then Bishop Francis McKiernan, now deceased, in the diocese of Kilmore, took testimony from two young boys abused by the serial rapist Fr. Brendan Smyth. At the end of those interviews, Brady exacted a vow of silence from the boys which effectively protected Smyth from public censure and enabled him to go on abusing children -- including in the United States -- for another 18 years. Brady, too, said nothing to any one about the case, other than to his bishop, ever again. Not to the gardai, not to the courts, not even to the bishops to whose dioceses Smyth had then been sent.
Challenged now to resign because of that failure to give evidence of a crime, Brady's answer is the Nuremberg defense: He was only following orders; he did not have the responsibility to make any reports other than to his bishop; he was only a note-taker. All of these elements of the situation are now in hot dispute.
But the question is deeper than the simple ones of role and organizational responsibility.
The question is why would a good man with a good heart, as he surely is, think twice about his responsibility to take moral and legal steps to stop a child predator from preying on more children everywhere, some of them for years at a time?
The answer to that question is a simple one: It is that the kind of "blind obedience" once theologized as the ultimate step to holiness, is itself blind. It blinds a person to the insights and foresight and moral perspective of anyone other than an authority figure.
Blind obedience is itself an abuse of human morality. It is a misuse of the human soul in the name of religious commitment. It is a sin against individual conscience. It makes moral children of the adults from whom moral agency is required. It makes a vow, which is meant to require religious figures to listen always to the law of God, beholden first to the laws of very human organizations in the person of very human authorities. It is a law that isn't even working in the military and can never substitute for personal morality.
From where I stand, if there are any in whom we should be able to presume a strong conscience and an even stronger commitment to the public welfare, it is surely the priests and religious of the church. But if that is the case, then the church must also review its theology of obedience so that those of good heart can become real moral leaders rather than simply agents of the institution.
A bifurcation of loyalties that requires religious to put canon law above civil law and moral law puts us in a situation where the keepers of religion may themselves become one of the greatest dangers to the credibility -- and the morality -- of the church itself.
Stories in this series
|
As usual Joan captures it all
As usual Joan captures it all in a nutshell. Unfortunately the institution has become God for many. The past and current regime in the Vatican has been very instrumental in promoting this notion.
The ongoing biggest problem
The ongoing biggest problem behind all this tragedy in the Church is not just blind obedience to superiors, it is most of all the Church law of celibacy for the priesthood. Until the Church changes this man made law to allow priests to marry, the sexual scandals will continue and continue. This abuse of the children is not new to the 20th and 21st centuries. It is only now that victims have begun to speak out. Now that the entire mess has been opened up, it's become obvious that the children were always victimized. Priests throughout the history of the Church have either been releasing their sexual frustrations on innocent children or, in many cases, have maintained adult sexual relations with consenting partners. Or, again, in many situations, priests in their frustrations have turned to alcohol.
The Popes throughout the decades continue to ignore the problem and to insist on their belief that since the Apostles were celibate (never proven) then the priests must also be.
While now the present Pope, the bishops, and the cardinals are asking for understanding, forgiveness of the victims, etc. etc. they are not changing the rules to get rid of the problem. And without getting rid of the celibacy law, this kind of abuse will only go underground. It will never stop. This is the reason many priests have left the priesthood and married to have more normal lives. Hundreds have done this. Why can't the Church wise up? It will continue to be a hopeless mess otherwise.
Like many others who have been revolted by the sex abuse in the Church, I am
cutting myself off from the Church and will either go to the Episcopal Church or no church at all. Another thing occurred to me regarding all this: a priest is supposed to have the power to change the wine and bread into the actual body of Christ. How is it possible for a priest whose hands have molested innocent children and forever ruined their lives to actually be permitted by God to perform such a holy rite? Too many questions.
As an Episcopalian, I should
As an Episcopalian, I should be ready to extend to you a warm welcome, but I am hesitant. Your stated reason is to exchange a celibate clergy for a married and thereby to flee the sex abuse than follows from celibacy, so let me me introduce you to:
1. Rev. William Edward Thompson, Jr., charged with 21 counts of child sexual abuse and pleaded guilty in a plea bargain. The married father of 4 sons, he was headmaster at St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church in Catonsville, MD. He was charged with child pornography and molesting 7 boys, ages 11 to 16, in his home and on church property.
2. Stephen P. Apthorp, suspended associate rector of a Tucson, AZ, Episcopal church. He pleaded guilty in Massachusetts to repeatedly raping his stepdaughter between her 10th and 16th birthday, an estimated 830 incidents of abuse. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
3. Rev. Wallace A. Frey, charged with sexually abusing young men in his congregation at St. David’s Episcopal Church in DeWitt, NY. A church official said Frey had been involved in “sexual misconduct over a lengthy period with some male, young adults & a teenager under his pastoral care”. Frey was married with 2 children and, ironically, headed a national committee examining the church’s position on sexuality.
I could add many more to this list, Bonnie, though I think you can get the general idea. At least I HOPE you can.
I think this comment misses
I think this comment misses the real problem that the Catholic Church exhibits. The REALLY appalling thing about the Catholic Church was their cover-up of the crimes. They value their image of being all-good and holy more than they value the need for love, protection and healthy growth of its members, and justice for all.
I don't know specifically about the Episcopal Church cases. I do know, however, that other churches seem to value doing the right thing above how they look.
Martha, I think the
Martha,
I think the percentage of child abuse in organized religion is fairly consistant. The response of the leadership is not. We Catholic parents are aware abuse occurs across the board. The systematic enabling of the abuser is what has broken the heart of every Catholic.
Do we respect and revere our patriarchal religious leadership? No. They have lost all crediability. Do we love and respect individual priests? Absolutely.
I'm afraid it doesn't matter what they say or what measures are taken. Trust is broken and will not be regained in this generation. Blame it on the times, the religious culture, or recently homosexuality. There is no reason or excuse acceptable.
Even a belief of recovery in priests that abuse; does not escape the fact that repeated abusers were tranferred and children were knowingly put at risk.
The patriachy is irrelevent to this faithful Catholic. That's why you may find us in lay movement reform groups. Or perhaps we will be the Catholics in your pews of the Episcopal church. Or both. Your current internal struggles are interesting to us, not heartbreaking. You struggle over inclusion. We should be so fortunate.
Peace
Welcome to the pews of The
Welcome to the pews of The Episcopal Church, “faithful Catholic” Carol.
As you so rightly say, we Episcopalians “struggle over inclusion,” and your contribution to that struggle would be a boon to us. In recent years we have enjoyed an inflow of Roman Catholic homosexuals and Roman Catholic women, at the same time suffering an outflow of heterosexual couples with children (less than 8% of our members are under the age of 18). We depend upon converts rather than natural increase. Since we are only about 2 million in number—and, sadly, in decline—each and every new member we can get is important to us.
In addition to being an inclusive church (or course we can’t include those who don’t accept women clergy and same-sex partnerships), we are liberal in our theology. Whatever beliefs you come to us with about Jesus and spirituality and salvation you can keep, provided they aren’t traditional/conservative. Less than 40% of Episcopalians believe Jesus is God, for example, so whether you do or don’t is no problem.
One caution, however. You will have difficulty finding one of our churches in rural America. We are, very largely, city folk. And another. Don’t be upset if you find only white people when you enter one of our churches. There are black Episcopalians most certainly, but they congregate in the African Episcopal Church, which is an entirely different thing.
But did the Episcopal Church
But did the Episcopal Church hide these ministers and protect them through silence from civil authorities?
Dear Ms. Allen, You are
Dear Ms. Allen,
You are clearly blaming the scandal of priest sexual abuse on celibacy, but I think you do it completely without cause. Can any single man blame his abuse on the fact that he is not married? Then by law, the Church should require all men and women to be married. Please see the article “A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse” by Thomas Plate, Ph.D. (easily found in several places on Google). It seems that married men have higher abuse rates than the clergy and there is also no substantial difference between abuse rates between Catholic and non-Catholic (that is free-to-marry ministers)clergy. So what’s the real reason behind your diatribe against celibacy?
You say that the priest is “supposed” to have the power to change the bread and wine into the Body of Christ, but wonder how that can be if priests have so grievously sinned. That’s a good point that was brought up when the Early Church had to deal with the Donatist heresy. The point to remember is that God’s power and grace can work through all instruments, even the most unworthy.
In the end, let’s pray for the vast majority of our priests who are innocently suffering the pain of the continued scandal. Can you put aside your anger and frustration (as valid as they may be) for a moment and consider how it would it would feel to be an innocent and faithful priest these days?!? Never forget to remind people that our priests are much LESS likely to have abused anyone than the average man. Going to the Episcopal Church where abuse rates are the same is not going to fix a lot of things.
You state that our priests
You state that our priests are much less likely than the average man to abuse someone. This is not the case in the Oakland, CA diocese. There have been 20 confirmed or admitted cases of abuse in the Oakland diocese during a set period of years from a 120 priests during this same period. This is well above the norm. I am afraid this fact you state needs to be re-worked. Do the math in Ireland and many US diocese given the number of priest in a diocese during a set period and the number of confirmed child abuse cases-- the numbers are way of the charts from the norm.
The sex abuse crisis in the
The sex abuse crisis in the Church has little to do with celibacy, but much to do with ongoing unhealthy beliefs (personal and instituional) about sexuality. Pedophila is a mental disorder, often expressed in a repetitive and compulsive manner. Pedophila is rampant in our society, and reinforced by the availability of child pornography on the internet. It often, not always, develops as a result of inappropriate sexual exposure at a very early age. Some pedophiles are fixated on children and are unable to relate to adults in a sexual or emotional intimate way. These individuals are the most dangerous. Extensive treatment including learning arousal reconditioning techniques and relapse prevention, often provides the pedophile with ways to manage, not cure, the deviance. If this is insufficient, there is always pharmacological intervention.
Goodbye and good luck.
Goodbye and good luck.
Nothing I say justifies or
Nothing I say justifies or reduces the impact of Clergy Sexual Abuse. However, I don't believe the law of Celibacyis the reason for this abuse. We see it happen in other faiths and raditions that do not have the celibacy laws. It is about the abuse of power. It is about beleiving their own publicity that they are God's representative on earth and therefore have power rather than humility. I believe that any case that comes to light should immediatly be handed over to the police for investigation. The church should not be party to an investigation. The Church should give all their resources to the Police to assist them. On another note, It is not the priest who changes the bread and wine but the Holy Spirit. I think the Catholic Church needs to make celebacy a voluntary choice for priests and also needs to look into the model and role of priests so we don't have the power temptations. The devil even tempted jesus with power in the desert.
I refer Sr Joan and other
I refer Sr Joan and other readers here to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Congregation_of...
The US is not the first to expose sexual abuse of children by clergy.
Newfoundland's Mount Cashel Orphanage case in the 1980's, involving the Christian Brothers, has left a very bad taste here in Canada. The repercussions still resonate among the faithful.
The Diocese of Antigonish and now the Diocese of Yarmouth, both in Nova Scotia, have done, or are now dealing, with alleged sexual abuse cases.
Reactions here in the Maritimes to the news of the Boston cases was more a sad matter of: "So you're catching up, eh?"
Thank you so much, Sr. Joan.
Thank you so much, Sr. Joan. I have never read or heard a better explanation of the sinfulness of blind obedience, which which ignores God's gift of a conscience.
It has taken me most of my
It has taken me most of my adult life to separate God from religion (man made)
and to separate what I have experienced as God (universal love) as the real Truth that I must practice. What price we have all paid for the instiutionalization of God. May God have mercy for us.
Thank you for this brave set
Thank you for this brave set of questions. However, I see one more question, if we are willing to be even more brave. Is it possible that the environment of training for clergy has attracted predators and others who are sexually unhealthy? Can we begin to ask if this isn't simply the protection of a few bad clergy, but rather a whole system becoming aware of its dark dysfunction and desperately trying to avoid what it will take to invite transformation and redemption? I don't see anyone close to daring that kind of courage...
Peace in Christ, Leslie
One more question: yes,
One more question: yes, Leslie, you get to the heart of the matter here by questioning the environment of training for clergy. I absolutely agree that this invites people who are sexually unhealthy. Removing the requirement for celibacy would be one step away from this problem. Also, recognizing the requirement of blind obedience is a tool used by those pursuing power over others.
Leslie: You have definitely
Leslie: You have definitely "named" the "reality" that needs to be faced in seminaries which limit the educational experiences of young men to only their gender.
Yes, it is quite probable that the seminary institutions (and much of the male leadership of the Catholic Church) are becoming more aware of the negative consequences of their actions and beliefs (strongly held) and are building a fortress to protect themselves, hardening their hearts and minds and being afraid to face their brokenness and need for healing. Instead, they attack women and seek to return to the past for peace and security.
These are very sad days for the Catholic Church. May the healing presence of Jesus Christ through the Spirit bring deep renewal to the Catholic Christian community at large.
On the contrary, these are
On the contrary, these are not sad days for the catholic church. It is wonderful that all the abuse is being made public to finally begin to get to a church that is not dominated by old men. This is a new beginning where the hierarchy and clergy have to face that their dominant, celibate, one gendered system is unbalanced and corrupt and lacks love, acceptance, negotiation, respect of all those that Jesus talked about. There now needs to be justice seen to be given to those poor folks who suffered at the hands of the 'blind' clergy.
Hello Aileen--- I agree it
Hello Aileen---
I agree it is a most wonderful opportunity. But, sadly I do not think that opportunity will be taken by the old, celibate, men in the hierarchy.
I grieve for my Church. The answer seems apparent. But so very hard for mortal hearts to grasp.
These are productive times
These are productive times for the Church I agree - times of self-examination; growing times. I feel encouraged by the fact that Christ loves His church, and that He well knows we're fallible just as He knew Peter only too well. I love the church, and I certainly don't feel dominated by old men. I think if Mary has a strong role in the church, that balances a lot of men ;)
WE are the church - all of us believers who make up the body of Christ on Earth. I feel terrible for all the victims: those abused by the clergy, and those unjustly suspected, judged and condemned. I personally know a priest who gives of his small stipend to a fund established to pay for therapy for the victims of abuse. And is it a small thing that our Pope meets privately with abuse victims? (Thank you, Mr. Allen, for your article!)
I do not think that human beings have always been as hung up on sex as we are today. Does anyone pause to think why there were so many cases in the 70s? The Jews in Jesus' time certainly didn't have the idea of "free love"!? Yet they understood the facts of life, or Mary would not have asked the angel "How can that be?"
The best comment I have heard on the issue of celibacy in a long time came from a young, smart, good-looking seminarian, who when asked by our 17 yo daughter what he would do if he fell in love, answered this: "I hope I would do what every married man should do when he falls in love with a woman other than his wife: Get down on my knees and pray for help to deal with the temptation." I wish my (Lutheran minister) friend had done that before entering into a relationship with a colleague, and leaving his wife and three children.
How is sexual temptation different from any other temptation to do wrong & harm others? Maybe in that it harms others, especially children, in a much more profound way. Doesn't that imply that sexuality is rightly treated with special regard?
WE are the church. How are WE different? What are WE doing to support faithful priests, marriages, and families? How do WE help grow strong and loving non-sexual relationships, and a healthy and life-giving attitude towards sexuality? How do we help our children know that love does not equal sex, and deal with their sexuality in a responsible way which acknowledges that it is a life-giving part of their human nature? Do we talk to them about temptation, and do we even show them the respect inherent in judging them capable of resisting temptation?
Thoughtful and well done!
Thoughtful and well done! Thank you!
When one sets out to
When one sets out to understand and/or solve a problem the first challenge is to reflect on what precisey IS the problem. Is the key the immediate expression, as awful as it might be, or is there a situation, a state somewhere lurking which, untended, will stifle whatever resolution, whatever route, however well thought out and well-intentioned? Sister Joan is there or almost there. And Benedict XVI is the historical flash-point.
Having read a fair amount of what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict has written it seems that his world-view can be summed up in two concepts: "logos" and "obedience" and the relation between them, the logic that emanates and congeals is "hierarchy". What doesn't fit gets dropped, "straw-manned" and excoriated, redefined to fit his purpose, or relegated to platitudinous rhetoric.
"Logos" he seems to see as platonic, out-there real and complete absolute truth - God. The purity of that concept cannot handle the fuzziness of "love" so he redefines love as truth. His oft reported mission of "restoring the traditional markers of the church" is to identify these "accidents", these selectively identified incidentals of institution and tradition, and raise/restore them to the rank of absolute, to his vision of truth. In a single word: "institution" personified in its preeminent historical pre-reformation position of power and authority with all its trappings.
The proper response of "mankind" is to take its proper place in respect to "truth", as God/Church, and that is obiesance and obedience. Holiness seems to be the process of perfecting obedience to truth incarnate - to institution and hierarchy. Hierarchy being "the fullness of priesthood" may help explain his seeming inability to deal with the shame of their behavior yet with equanimity silence hundreds of theologians who seek, who question. The exclusion and subservience of women is simply proper placement in natural and hierarchical order. In this world, self-directed, non-hierarchical loving obedience and service of women religious to Christ is a singular travesty that must be quashed. In this world the "norms" of nature are elevated to immutable "law" and more, are subsumed into the absolute of Truth, hierarchy and institution. Hence, homosexuality and same-sex marriage are unconscionable.
Ratzinger/Benedict didn't invent this world he simply made it his, made it his mission, has become its victim and us with him.
This may explain too why the real children are late comers to his range of sensitivity.
dennism, Wow!!! Very, very
dennism,
Wow!!! Very, very well said! Between you and Sr. Joan you have really pierced to the very core of their mindset and this entire mess. This mess is not only a sexual mess, it is a political mess as well.
This is total obeisance to the cognoscenti/illuminati of the church hierarchy as the penultimate arbiters of absolutely everything that exists or takes place in Gods world which to them is actually totally regarded as their world. These are the penultimate authoritarian personality type. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are also totally committed to this idea, the all knowing. Iow, the total superiority of those who always know better than everyone else what is better for everyone else. But as we see they do not even know what is better for themselves, much less everyone else.
Do they not violate the very concept of our God given soul, with the Free Will, the right to choose(within society norms, of course) and a higher order mind with which to make these decisions. IOW, they purport to know what is better/best for everyone else and they are darn well going to force everyone else to do their bidding thus stripping us of our Souls/Free Will, the right to choose for ourselves. These people are then consumed by their viewpoint that the world/everyone else/everyone who is Not them is evil and therefore unworthy of self determination. OR, iow, THEIR logical extension of their "Right to Rule" allows them to to whatever, they will kill us before they will allow us to sin, according to their definition of sin.. Iow, they alone hold the "divine right to rule".
It seems to me they got away with this mindset in the past because we the governed were largely uneducated. Now we are as educated as they are and we also have the Internet to see...beyond our immediate world. And all the while they are stuck in the confines of their self defined theology.
IOW, God isn't the problem, religion, man-made religion is the true problem.
Thanks for your post.
Some of what you say fits
Some of what you say fits into what I've been thinking. I wonder if "blind obedience" is the vertical version of the old fashioned horizontal "territorial imperative". To me as a women, the "masculine" often appears to divide up the world into a grid system where each male applies his values over a certain territory and considers his hands tied about what happens in another's territory— unless he intends to attack that territory or has a negotiated agreement.
In this view, a subordinate has his strictly defined borders and one just does not step outside them without appearing to be an enemy. The same phenomena tends to happen in any chain of command, particularly with men but also women in a predominantly men's chain. I think of the chain of management and workers and transport employees that produce and knowingly deliver horrendous nuclear weapons, or the military, etc. The compartmentalization of responsibility or jurisdiction anywhere encourages the conscience to go to sleep, and the more so when individuals see the organization overall doing much good.
What you say about women fits, too: "In this world, self-directed, non-hierarchical loving obedience and service of women religious to Christ is a singular travesty"….
Women tend to apply their values globally without paying much attention to boundaries. Men's hunting in a group is a coordinated affair, and gathering or gardening is more like parallel play, together but individual. Also child care is shared in a less hierarchal way. We are more likely to jump the chain of command and go straight to the boss, and may even be oblivious to the proper chain. We are likely to be the whistle blowers.
But keeping this aspect of ourselves when inserted into a male structure is still not guaranteed.
This wandering aspect also means a woman can be surprised when she finds support from a man only while she is within his own jurisdiction/territory and sudden absence of support from the same man when she has unawarely crossed into the territory of another male.
Dear Anonymous: Personally, I
Dear Anonymous: Personally, I don't know. As I age I am finding that the stereotypes don't necessarily follow. I may be becoming a bit more "feminin" in my perspective and yet I also see women as being as territorial in their own way(s) as men.
Being male I probably have no credibiliity to say this but, I think that women are less likely to distingusih between their objectives and their values; men seem to be able to "park" their values until they achieve or in the process of achieving their end. Dangerous territory.
It thrilled me to read your
It thrilled me to read your words about your inner “feminin”. They give courage to people like me, likewise a woman trapped in a man’s body. Thank you so much!
It is hard for most of us to
It is hard for most of us to get our heads around the sex-abuse and its associated authority problems and, at the same time, cope with our distress. Sr Joan's comment is timely and very helpful. She is calling us beyond institutional loyalities and even our sympathies for the offended and their offenders to the Gospel values of doing the truth in love of God and others.
I, for one, am grateful to her for that and to NCR for reporting both the facts and helpful support such as this.
Mike Tunney
Sr. Joan, Thank you! Thank
Sr. Joan,
Thank you! Thank You! Thank You! for your steadfastness to what is right and moral.
K McGrane
I think it's not helpful to
I think it's not helpful to evaluate the past by today's standards and/or awareness. Thirty-five years ago, many of us -- especially those who had spent our formative years in seminaries -- thought of sexual abuse as something that could be "made to go away" and believed, albeit naively, that an abuser could be convinced to "go straight" by reminding him of his vocation.
Neither do I believe that the notion of blind obedience is to blame for this pattern of abusive behavior. By 1975, every cleric I knew, including most Irish priests, was questioning authority at every turn and unlikely to keep quiet because the Church preferred silence. If Sister Joan has an axe to grind with clerical obedience in the Church today, she shouldn't try to sharpen it against old stones.
Excuse me. We have Victims
Excuse me. We have Victims here. Openess and Redress is needed if we are to continue living the life Christ intended for us.
What then is helpful to
What then is helpful to evaluate the past? You are sadly mistaken and seem willing again to sweep every abuse into hiding. Everyone knew in 1975 right from wrong, especially those who were leaders in the church. Who could mistake that the children were not victims of crime. Had the accued been public politicians, they would have not escaped scrutiny, legal procedures and press exposure as did the "priests". Shame on you.
Shame on Robert for giving
Shame on Robert for giving his opinion? I think you will be a lot more convincing and our conversations will be a lot more civil if we handle our disagreements without finger-wagging and shaming each other.
Well said, Robert. Indeed,
Well said, Robert. Indeed, "blind obedience" has note existed in the Church since Vatican II. One of the outcomes of the Council (one that the Council never intended) was the tendency, the belief, that everything, every doctrine, every decision, was open to question and debate.
Further, the reaction of the hierarchy to the abuse of minors in those days mirrored that of society. Society did not think abuse of minors any major crime, most abusers, if caught, were fined or spent a minimal amount of time incarcerated. Abuse of minors was not viewed as the crime that it is now. This is typical of all things, society's mores change and things that were overlooked in the past become major events in the present.
Finally, based on her writings and her lectures, I agree that Sr. Joan appears to have an axe to grind, not only with clerical obedience in the Church, but with the idea of obedience in general.
One with longer ecclesial
One with longer ecclesial experience than the greenwooded Clint realizes that blind obedience began with the Ratzinger CDF as Wojtyla beat the One Universal and CAtholic Church into his own little cult of personality with all in lockstep as, well, a Nazi Youth would demand.
This is not Holy Obedience.
This is the blind leading the blind and all falling into the pit.
We do very well gratefully and with greatest humility to hear this great Benedictine nun, whose life long study of Our Holy Father Saint Benedict´s Rule, in particular the passages thee on the mystery of obedience, and to open our eyes, hearts, minds and soul to God, who is Love.
Read the Reverend Sister Joan Chittister OSB.
AUSCULTA, fili
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Frere Charles, The fact that
Frere Charles,
The fact that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have not promoted views in accord with yours does not mean that it is legitimate for you to use hysterical language such as "beating the Church into a "cult of personalty" and "Hitler Youth." It is sadly comic that dissenting Catholics (as you appear to be), often accuse non-dissenting Catholics of being unwilling to think and reason, when here, you have clearly demonstrated your own willingness to use over-the-top rhetoric and smear tactics. There is nothing that JP2 and BXVI have taught that is not in accord with the historic Catholic Christian faith. Read the early Church Fathers. They defend the Faith against heterodox teachers in very strong terms. Do you care to verbally malign the early Fathers too?
Dear Christopher Lake, There
Dear Christopher Lake, There are many on this board that do not have the Catholic mentality to respect the Holy Father in any age. St. Benedict taught Love in all it's aspects and many so-called Benedictine Religious are zealous followers of anti-Benedictine principles.
Too often the vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience are down graded by their efforts to praise those who defile all the Catholic Church teaches to suit their own whims. This is tragic and truly sad and requires the prayers of all of us for their conversion!
I found a curious entry on
I found a curious entry on the SNAP blog and am wondering whether you might be able to enlighten me about it. I ask you because you identify yourself with the religious order named. Thanks in advance for any enlightenment you can offer.
“Does anyone know anything of these sisters located in Erie, Pa., under the diocese of Bishop Trautmann? They have taught extensively in schools in the Erie, Pa. area. Are there survivors? They are a large community, who still offer retreats to the public. At one retreat I attended last year, one of the presenters actually jokingly said to the group that she hoped that we all could “forgive” them for the past, because their life was so difficult and restrictive then.”
Kindly forgive my slowness in
Kindly forgive my slowness in responding to you, 106, as I only now come stumbling across your query to me. I beg you to forgive my severely limiting literacy incapacity, but it is quite difficult for me to discern in your several words the precise point of your question.
I do not know what this SNAP is (knowing only know SNAP in snap, crackle, and pop) and I do not know what “survivors” is referring to (shipwrecks? tsumanis?). I only know my two comforts in life are reading the Reverend Sr Joan Chittister OSB and giving an armful of love to the small Mexican children on the border uprooted from Arizona by the “toughest sheriff in the USA” whose mother and fathers are sent to incarceration in the Northeast and the children to grandmothers here, these children US citizens having been born here, whom we have made our enemy, and whom I put on my lap and hug and squeeze and kiss to make smile. My brilliant students are all four years old, most of them girls. May they ever remain thus (liberated and brilliant, not four years old).
I also know dignum et justum est is the message of the Reverend Sr Joan Chittister OSB. I look to the Reverend Sr Joan Chittister OSB (past President of US Benedictine Prioresses) each day, and to her many writings, for her strength and her guidance in my Roman Catholic Faith. I only know that the Reverend Sr Joan Chittister of the Benedictine Sisters of Erie, PA, is the finest mind and heart and soul we have in our American English speaking Roman Catholic Church, and I read her works faithfully.
Look at the whiners, and the great damage they have done, the harvest they have sown, the promising seeds they ripped out like weeds! Are you, 106, a whiner trying to make trouble for the Reverend Mr Joan Chittister OSB who speaks powerfully and prophetically, and always in line with recent pontifical pronouncements?
I shall pray for peace, and even for you, 106, in deep gratitude for this flowing wellspring of clean living waters which is the National Catholic Register. I was reviewing the left column here, and what could be finer, bearing names like Chittister and Deer and Jumbleton and McBrine. Wonderful. And a great blessing for us readers.
Open our empty Churches to child care centers, and keep the clergy away! Except for us professionals. Our hugging and squeezing and kissing is nothing to worry about, 106, because we are guided by the Reverend Sr Joan Chittister OSB and her pontifical pronouncements.
Forgive me once more as I cannot comprehend the bulk of your statement but I hope this answers as adequately as I can, limited as I am.
your poorest little brother
frère charles du désert OSB
By the time I finished
By the time I finished reading what you wrote I was in tears. You are my brother, Frère Charles. Your love is so heartfelt. You speak so eloquently about it. Those like me who share it with you can learn from you how to speak out boldly and proudly about it. Your lack of fear and shame is an inspiration to me and, I have to believe, to countless others.
Dear brother charles, " Open
Dear brother charles, " Open our empty Churches to child care centers, and keep the clergy away!" It is sad that you express your ignorance of the Catholic Church and our belief in Jesus Christ as you do and even sadder is the fact that any supporter of the Catholic Church gives you a forum to express your non-Catholic views. Your constant diatribes against all that we hold sacred is not the least bit amusing nor scholarly!!
Robert, your comment
Robert, your comment overlooks the central deviance, sinfulness and criminality of the sexual abuse and focuses on the idea that, in the past, some people thought that priests engaging in this behavior could be cured. So what? Whether today, or in 1975, or in 1925, or at anytime in history, I don't want some creep sexually violating my child, I don't care what his position is, and I don't want to see him entrusted with any other children, ever! This is an obvious and profound and instinctive response of all parents that was deliberately and consistently ignored by bishops who failed the grasp the horrific nature of this criminal activity....or maybe they did grasp it, and worry about lawsuits, which eventually caught up with them anyway. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of this comes down to protecting both the church's reputation and its bank accounts.
Mike - thank you for your
Mike - thank you for your comments. Sister Joan writes about something that happened in 1975. At that time, I was an Assistant in a diocese where a number of priests were known to be pedophiles. Most of us just shook our heads when the subject came up. Sad to say, none of us did anything about it until they were caught and brought to trial. Neither the bishop, nor the priests, nor the religious, nor the laity in their parishes spoke up. In my case, and I believe in the case of many others, it had nothing to do with blind obedience. We regularly opposed our bishop on a variety of issues, as often happened in the seventies. I think most of us hoped that what we were being told by psychologists was true, and these men would eventually be able to turn their lives around. I think we were also naively unaware of the extent of their offenses, or the suffering their victims endured. And yes, I think we were silently complicit in the process, and I continue to blame myself for that to this day. But, again, the point of the article in question was that the church in 1975 protected abusers because of blind obedience, and I have to say that was not my experience. If we had then the information we have today, I think we would all have handled the situation very differently.- Robert
Oh my goodness. Looks like
Oh my goodness. Looks like someone is trying to rationalize his own paricipation in this situation. Wow! Were seminarians really that senseless? If every cleric was questioning the church, why didn't anyone step forward? Even today clerical obedience to the institution rather than the gospel is doing irreparable damage.
"By 1975, every cleric I
"By 1975, every cleric I knew, including most Irish priests, was questioning authority at every turn and unlikely to keep quiet because the Church preferred silence." Not credible. Nor is it credible or acceptable to "explain", i.e., rationalize by reviving the old saw that by relocating to another parish or to "therapy" it would go away. Repeat offenders make that clear.
With respect for your good faith you seem to reflect one level of mentality that, by ommission or naivte, contributes to the systemic causality of long-term sexual abuse of children and youth in the church.
RobertG, these "old stones" are yours, not hers. Sister Chittister is turning them over so that the light of day dispells the perversity of their being offered and our accepting them.
And as Catholic feminist
And as Catholic feminist Frances Kissling makes so very clear, “blind obedience” was still very much in evidence in the summer of 2009 when she wrote these words:
And so we were surprised when the LCWR leadership refused to allow survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic sisters to address the past few annual meetings. The survivors want to share their stories of abuse as well as suggest processes to prevent such abuse in the future, including recommending that the sisters adopt the bishops’ anti-sex-abuse guidelines. To date, the nuns have just said no. Even the bishops allowed the survivors time on the agenda of their annual meeting some five years ago when the clergy sex abuse scandal was at its peak. What was wrong with these sisters who have worked for democracy in the church, the rights of the poor and marginalized, and just about every social justice issue you could think of? Were they in denial? Afraid of the publicity?
Barbara Blaine, co-director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, told me that she couldn’t understand LCWR’s unwillingness to listen to survivors. “It’s such a bad move. Even if they weren’t sincere it would make more sense to invite us, listen politely and then ignore us. Stonewalling just makes them look bad.”
It's always helpful to
It's always helpful to evaluate the past (and the present) by the standards of the Gospel, not by the standards and/or awareness of the Roman institution.
RobertG on Mar. 17, 2010. You
RobertG on Mar. 17, 2010.
You stated:
"I think it's not helpful to evaluate the past by today's standards and/or awareness. Thirty-five years ago, many of us -- especially those who had spent our formative years in seminaries -- thought of sexual abuse as something that could be "made to go away" and believed, albeit naively, that an abuser could be convinced to "go straight" by reminding him of his vocation.
Neither do I believe that the notion of blind obedience is to blame for this pattern of abusive behavior. By 1975, every cleric I knew, including most Irish priests, was questioning authority at every turn and unlikely to keep quiet because the Church preferred silence. If Sister Joan has an axe to grind with clerical obedience in the Church today, she shouldn't try to sharpen it against old stones."
------------------------------------------------------
What may be your past is not necessarily everybody's past. When we had two popes who believe that the best way to run the Church is to enforce ecclesiastical totalitarinism upon it. Cardinal Ratzinger had more power in the Holy Office than anyone could imagine. Under the two pontificatates---bishops lost the power of collegiality that was granted in the documents of Vatican II. Theologians were silenced! Bishops are reduced to being middle managers of their dioceses. If they are ambitious to move up the hierarchical ladder---they have to spout the party line---loud and clear.
Unless you have been living in a closet since 1975---you should have observed these changes. Clerical obedience (blind) is alive and healthy.
Sister Joan speaks the truth---and she's not grinding any ax.
As a lay person who is a
As a lay person who is a close friend to many priests and religious, I would like to make a comment on this post. In addition, I would also like to comment on some common themes that have been running through a number of the articles posted by NCR which implicate celibacy, obedience and secrecy and the role they have played in how this horrible scandal has played out.
There have been many calls for transparency and an end to a way of doing business for the Church that relies on first protecting its image. There is no doubt that the Church has known about priest sexual abuse issues for decades. What they were told by psychiatrists and psychologists regarding the ability to "cure" various individuals of the tendency to abuse should surely have been dismissed early on once they had evidence that the same men were abusing over and over again despite often repeated efforts to treat them. However, relying on these theories for however long or short a time they actually seemed practical, did not justify the policy of dismissal and intimidation the Church practiced against the victims. Protecting the reputation of the priest and the Church took a front seat to helping or simply acknowledging the hurt done to the victims. There is no excuse to cover this.
I agree with this post that adherence on the part of individual priests to blind obedience is not to blame for the pattern of behavior. But I have been a first hand witness to a bishop attempting to put one of my friends "under obedience" for simply asking for an explanation about a policy. They did not want to give an explanation and simply got out the "big guns." My priest friend was furious as he did not go to the Bishop saying he would not implement the program but that he had problems with it as it was given to us. He wanted permission to make it more effective. Once he was given an opportunity to explain himself, we were given the green light to make some changes. However, I do believe that obedience, at least on the part of Bishops to Rome, has led to the systematic cover-up and reassignment of abuser priests. I recently read Bishop Rembert Weakland's book "Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church" in which he speaks of the attitude by Rome toward American Bishops' attempts to deal with this problem in the late 80s and early 90s. Rome tied their hands and made it nearly impossible to dismiss these priests. However, I don't believe that anything can explain adequately how these same bishops continued to give abusers the green light by recommending them as "a priest in good standing" when they transferred to another diocese as happened with the predator Paul Shanley when Cardinal Law and Bishop McCormack [a classmate of Shanley] helped him in his transfer to California. Bishop Weakland's book indicates that the wake-up call had already dawned on American Bishops even at this early time. Yet, as a collective group over a hundred strong, no effort was made to stand firm against the Roman policy of secrecy and denial. In this, obedience can surely be implicated in the silence of so many and their lack of courage in banding together to send a resounding "NO" to Rome.
Father Andrew Greeley, well know for his novels but also a first rate sociologist, wrote a book back in 2005 called "Priests, A Calling in Crisis." In this book, Father Greeley looks at statistics on sexual abuse in general in the United States and found that priests abuse at about the same percentage as all men throughout the social order. The statistics did not change for married men. Married men abused at the same percentage as single men or priests. In light of this, it seems fairly obvious that celibacy cannot be implicated in a tendency to abuse anymore than homosexuality can be. Married men are not a group who are routinely thought of as repressing sexual urges. Pedophiles and sex abusers are people with an aberrant sexual condition no matter what "state" or occupation they choose.
I do not mean for this to be a debate on the value of celibacy; however, statistics apparently show that it is not something that can be implicated in a man's tendency to want sex with children or with their choice to sexually abuse others. Celibacy has not stopped married men from extramarital affairs or from committing rape. Some even rape their own children.
Furthermore, I believe that the focus on celibacy as a causative agent when it clearly is not, detracts from the more important focus on a Church hierarchy that has victimized people in the name of saving itself from scandal. Our attention should turn to correcting the kind of governance that was able to rationalize such moral atrocity for the sake of saving face.
While this comment is
While this comment is compelling and makes a number of excellent points, I am troubled by the closing paragraph. I cannot fathom a way of "correcting the kind of governance that was able to rationalize such moral atrocity for the sake of saving face" without addressing such core issues as patriarchal privilege - a toxic male monopoly that absolutely blocks the real, concrete, meaningful participation of women in the Church (whether as religious sisters, priests, wives of priests, administrators, deacons, or bishops) while paying unconvincing lip service to how very, very much women are valued and, well, very almost equal. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said it best: "We are grossly impoverished and we undermine the effectiveness of our mission and witness when we deny women access to the ordained ministry…I believe quite firmly that [ordination of women] is God's will for our Church at this time. We will be a more gentle, a more caring Church with women priests, for ordination is not to power or into an elite caste, but it is for service and sacrifice."
This monstrous incidence of child sexual abuse by priests may, as Fr. Greeley's data suggests, be consistent with deviant sexual behavior in society in general. But I feel intuitively that MOTHERS and FATHERS in positions of authority in the Church would be more concerned about the children than celibate males who are intent on protecting an all boys club and the club's prerogatives (I think this explains the dramatic development of Voice of the Faithful in response to the crisis in America). Until this club is integrated and nurtured by women as equal partners both in ministry and in life it will be fundamentally flawed and blind to its own abuses. There will be no "more gentle, more caring Church" while women are locked out as both married partners and as ministers themselves. I think we are deceiving ourselves to think that anything but such a fundamental change will alter the way things are done, and I don't consider it a distraction, but rather, an imperative. Read such harsh and regressive nonsense as http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/ncrs-joan-chittister-compares-apostate-le... and you begin to understand the depth of hostility and intolerance toward women on the part of some priests and their obedient sheep, or should I say lemmings.
Clearly, feeling threatened as a result of being exposed for protecting criminals, and looking the other way as these priestly colleagues violated children over and over, and feeling it in the wallet, and realizing how hollow the mea culpas ring when evidence mounts that they were lacking the most fundamental empathy for the parents who begged for help, many of our bishops stand utterly devoid of moral authority and respect. They have betrayed our children and they have betrayed us. So naturally, they have become shrill in political circles over their one note song, abortion, which interestingly is a problem none of them will ever have to deal with personally, and they have now launched a holy mission to clean up the women religious, convenient scapegoats, to distract from their utter malfeasance and incompetence.
The fact is, lay people have had it with this betrayal and will never be obedient to such men who, in the end, stand for nothing but lies. Their stunning lack of courage and faith - that Christ and His Church would prevail if they embraced the truth and acted with integrity - leaves me cold. We have not even begun to understand or accept the depth of their apostasy.
So,Robert, 35 years ago, you
So,Robert, 35 years ago, you didn't know it was wrong for adult men to penetrate children?
Janet - Thank you for your
Janet - Thank you for your question. If I didn't make my point clearly, I apologize. Clergy abuse had been going on for many years before 1975, yet NCR -- which has perhaps done more than any other organizatiion to make us pay attention to this sickness in our midst -- only ran its first article on clergy abuse in 1983. I believe it was NCR's reporting, in conjunction with the lawsuits that followed in the mid-eighties, that made us understand these were not isolated cases, and made us all appreciate how seriously our confreres had violated their victims.
Sister Joan's arument was that this lengthy coverup is tied to a pattern of blind obedience that dates back at least to 1975, when Cardinal Brady required victims to take an oath of secrecy. I continue to disagree, not because I believed then or now that it wasn't "wrong for adult men to penetrate children," but because those were the heady days of post-Vatican II freedom. In the US, Jean Jadot was Apostolic delegate, appointing non-conformist bishops like Walter Sullivan in Richmond, Howard Hubbard in Albany, and William Borders in Orlando. Bishops like these were more likely to fix dinner and do the dishes than suppress opinion.
If, as one respondent here has noted, that post-conciliar openness has given way to a pattern of blind obedience, that helps explain subsequent intransigence by pastors and bishops, but it doesn't explain why these same things happened in 1975 and I, for one, suspect there's not nearly as much blind obedience in today's church as Sister Joan thinks. Nevertheless, that is a point on which honest people can disagree, and if I didn't explain myself clearly, once again, I apologize. - robert
Ms. Clark, That is not what
Ms. Clark,
That is not what he said, and you know it. Very low. Can we raise the bar a bit on our discussion here?
Well said!
Well said!
I think it's not helpful to
I think it's not helpful to evaluate the past by today's standards and/or awareness. Thirty-five years ago, many of us -- especially those who had spent our formative years in seminaries -- thought of sexual abuse as something that could be "made to go away" and believed, albeit naively, that an abuser could be convinced to "go straight" by reminding him of his vocation.
It's likewise unhelpful to spew appalling rationalizations distilled from grotesque falsehood(s), careless oversimplification, unacknowledged solipsism.
There are numerous "child molesters", child murderers, serial killers who 'specialized' in sex crimes against children populating psychiatric wards, prisons, death rolls of executions past for atrocities committed & subsequently prosecuted throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's.
And even if you acknowledge the certainty of crude, often unenlightened, surely uneven responses by institutions to crimes against children, there was never a time where courts generally "thought," "believed" or dismissed child predation as "something that could be made to go away," an offense correctable by, gasp!, "reminders."
Evidence? Count the "Mack Ray Edwards," "Peter Woodcocks," et al. of history for one -- secular predators who were prosecuted and sentenced for their crimes. Witness the comparative lack of prosecution and hence, punishment, against clerical perpetrators. The extent and duration of criminal silence by religious institutions and practioners could not be clearer. Or more disgusting.
No, those who witnessed, believed and/or acted under the belief that the sexual abuse of children was not a reportable crime are nothing less than accessories in crime, sin and suggestively more -- forever guilty of the crime, sin and its denial, forgiven only by those equally culpable under the eyes of false [g]ods, i.e., complicit clerical authority.
Robert: I agree with what you
Robert: I agree with what you say about awareness now vs. them. But these were moral absolutes: It was ALWAYS wrong (a sin and a crime) to rape children. There can be no doubt of that and whatever tortured logic the bishops use to justify their actions and inactions have no merit. You say they thought the problem "could be made to go away." How many times did they think that when the same pedophile attacked child after child after child in parish after parish after parish? The bishops were supposed to represent Jesus, and protect His children. They failed horribly.
Thank you for this insightful
Thank you for this insightful article. I agree with you 100% that blind obedience is blind and that it stifles moral maturity. The insistence by the hierarchy on obedience places a higher priority on that virtue than any other virtue. The sex abuse scandal is such a sick reality in our church. The credibilty of the all male clerical system has hit an all time low-and rightly so. I am beginning to wonder f this systemic crime was a cult within the church. It seems too widespread to be a randon matter.
I am still amazed that Rome is investigating women religious when ALL of their investigation of themselves. It is time that some outside body investigate this all boys club. It is a very sick system.
Let us pray that this can be
Let us pray that this can be acknowledged and corrected.
Again, another excellent
Again, another excellent commentary from a profound analytical writer! Keep it up, Sister.
It won't be long before we hear the same horrible news from Latin America.
Evvie
Latin America? It's already
Latin America? It's already there ----
http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/abuse-latin-america-ta...
I find it interesting and
I find it interesting and sort of sad that the Holy Father is going to write a papal message on this. I also find it ironic that now Cardinal Brady stood up at St. Patrick's Day mass and apologized to the people of God. In my opinion, no papal message or cardinal apology will erase the sins of the fathers or put this disgraceful, immoral history to rest.
As they have sown: "It was a
As they have sown:
"It was a practice that saved the reputation of the church at the expense of children. It traded innocence for image."
So shall they reap!
Reviewing its theology of
Reviewing its theology of obedience would be a good start, but only a start. Sr. Joan rightly says that "Blind obedience is... a misuse of the human soul in the name of religious commitment" that "makes moral children of the adults from whom moral agency is required." What about the overarching fear and repression of sexuality in the Latin rite Church? Fear of a married priesthood, fear of the full inclusion of women, fear of an empowered, informed and entrusted laity? I think this is the toxic root of the twisted sexual expression we are seeing. In some ways I don't even know why it should be a surprise that priests who are forced to remain sexual children should find children sexually attractive. Certainly the majority who accept celibacy either sublimate their sexual energies or are sane and moral enough to recognize the evil of abusing children. But it remains an unhealthy system that demands the complete repression of one's sexual self in order to serve God. Clearly we have hundreds of years evidence since the Reformation and hundreds more prior to the year 1000 in which a married priesthood was not only workable but also desirable. Sr. Joan is right ---- the survivors are indeed "they are trying to warn us of a second aspect of the problem, still largely undefined" ---- but it goes beyond the question of obedience. It goes to the heart of what it means to be a fully human person, free to choose a healthy expression of one's sexuality, as well as a healthy expression of celibacy. Jesus tells us "be not afraid," but the Church hierarchy won't even allow us to talk about it....because they see us, and treat us, like children. But we will no longer accept that treatment. And we need to let those fearful men know it loud and clear. It's being shouted from the rooftops as Jesus said it would be (Luke 12).
Mike, I find your response
Mike, I find your response sad. Whether priests are "treated like children" re: celibacy is both a matter of debate and a whole other topic. When we are speaking of child abuse, what matters is that actual children be treated like children, which means that they are off-limits for sex, period.
Sister Joan, I am relieved.
Jean Brookbank
BC grad '49. Chittister has
BC grad '49. Chittister has become myinterpreter of the word of our supreme being, we should work to reach her level of courage and wisdom in teaching, hearing, and living the word of God versus the interpretations errant of that Word- even if put forth by the designated hitters from the Vatican team.
Thomas K. Connelly, Plaistow, NH
I recognize that the
I recognize that the political reality is that the Pope is only the figure head for the college of cardinals in Rome. So the responsibility lies with these individuals to do the morally correct thing and acknowledge the facts of abuse and make a world-wide public apology, then work to find positive preventative measures in the future.
The problem is in putting
The problem is in putting obedience to the church above obedience to God. Surely an egregious sin.
There are two types of
There are two types of obedience: obedience in relation to power and obedience in relation to love. When understood in the first way, obedience means submission or surrender, the sacrifice of one's own intellect and will.
According to the second understanding, obedience does not mean submission, but response. Disobedience is not the putting forward of opinions different from those commanded by authority. To do so might well be a duty, not a sin.
(Charles Davis on why it was not enough to ignore the church, NCR, February 7, 1992.)
Sr. Joan thoroughly understands the difference, and the rest of the religious, clergy AND layfolk need to understand that, too.
"Don't snitch" is a more
"Don't snitch" is a more common term for what Sister Chittister laments. This kind of social pressure against whistle blowers is often rampant in governments, NGO's, business enterprises, social organizations, prisons, and especially in gangs! Nobody in most such organizations wants to stand up courageously and defend or protect whistle blowers from the revenge of those whom they have exposed. Some whistle blowers, or snitches, may be seen by those folks who are somehow not affected by the organization's pecking order as speaking out with a prophetic voice for justice and fair play. Yet, the power structure in the organization usually will see her or him as a snitch, or as someone with an "attitude". The priest, Fr. Sean Brady, "a good man with a good heart, as he surely is," knew exactly what our Old and New Testament patriarchs and stooges "Traditionally" have perpetrated to deal with prophetic voices! Had Fr. Brady blown his whistle back in the day, would the church bosses have squelched his story and smeared him as a slanderer, a liar, a bumbler, or in today's jargon, a "liberal" who doesn't see the "big picture"? The Institutional Catholic Church is every bit as dysfunctional as was Enron or General Motors! An organizational schema so closely patterned to mimic the Roman Empire will someday meet fates similar to the Roman Empire's fall, just as other such organization during the past two millennia also have imploded! Those in the hierarchy, priesthood and others on our church payrolls who do not land in prisons will have to work for their livings elsewhere! (Those Anglican malcontents have boarded a second Titanic!)
As is often to be expected
As is often to be expected from Sr. Joan Chittister, this is an insight I haven't seen before. I think it will contribute a lot to sorting out the how and why of sex abuse cover-ups, and it could perhaps lead to some real change. It takes the fault from a personal failure to an institutional flaw, which might make change more acceptable.
On the other hand, it's hard not to feel gratified that this problem once smugly attributed to long-perceived American profligacy has now fallen on the heads of all the people who were unwilling to concede the seriousness of our problem. How could all those higher-ups, including Pope Benedict XVI, listen to us so disinterestedly as if scarcely grasping our claims as real, when they all have all this dirt piled up in their own closets?! I hope this factor will lead them to more ready openness and willingness to commit to some change that will help all of us never to have to deal with this problem again.
Post new comment