The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionFor Benedict, Malta was a break in the storm
Apr. 19, 2010
This is the logo for Pope Benedict XVI's April 17-18 visit to the Mediterranean island of Malta.
Rome -- For much of Pope Benedict XVI's April 17-18 visit to Malta, it was unclear whether the plumes of volcanic ash currently disrupting air travel in Europe would allow the pontiff to return to Rome as scheduled Sunday evening. In the end, however, the weather cooperated, and Benedict made it safely home.
Metaphorically, too, Malta seemed to offer a break in the storms raging around Benedict's papacy for the last month, in the form of mounting criticism of his handling of the sexual abuse crisis.
"The pope arrived in Malta with the church under a cloud," the Times of Malta opined in its wrap-up coverage, "and he must have left here satisfied that his visit had gone a long way to lifting it."
Malta is an archipelago composed of six islands in the Mediterranean, located halfway between Sicily and the North African coast. Its 400,000 people are 94 percent Catholic, with roughly half still attending Mass on a weekly basis, a robust number by European standards. Those Catholic roots are reflected in ways large and small – including the fact that in Maltese courts, people don't put their hands on a Bible to swear to tell the truth, they kiss a crucifix.
Large crowds flocked to the pope wherever he went, including more than 40,000 people who turned up for an open-air Mass on Sunday in the Granaries Square in Floriana, so named because it once conserved Malta's food supply. Despite some early morning drizzle, the sun broke out shortly before the pope arrived, and he was greeted with warm applause and cries of "Viva il papa!"
(Though the pope seemed energized by the reception, he is nevertheless now 83 years old, and occasionally seemed a bit fatigued. At one point during Sunday Mass, he appeared to nod off and was quickly nudged awake by an aide.)
Later in the day, more than 10,000 young people turned out for a rally with the pope in the upscale Waterfront area in Valletta, getting pumped up for four hours by high-octane Christian rock bands, and then exploding with enthusiasm when the pope finally arrived. Benedict made his way to the spot on a catamaran, crossing Malta's Grand Harbor at the head of a flotilla which was greeted a salute of canon fire as it passed by. All along the route, Maltese jammed the edges of the harbor to wave papal flags and to cheer.
On Saturday, more than 5,000 children flocked to Malta's Presidential Palace, where Benedict XVI was meeting President George Abela. When the pontiff stepped out onto a balcony to greet the crowd, the children broke into "Happy Birthday," celebrating the pope's 83rd birthday the day before, and then segued into a rousing chorus of "O Happy Day."
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Prior to the trip, some media outlets had anticipated scattered protests against the pontiff, and there were indications of potential blowback. Days before the pope arrived, a few posters had been defaced with Hitler moustaches and the word "pedophile." In the end, however, no anti-papal demonstrations materialized, and most people seemed pleased the pope was in town.
All in all, if one were to assess the state of Benedict's papacy exclusively on the basis of his reception in Malta, it would be difficult to sustain the notion that the pontificate is in meltdown – or, to use the maritime image that ran throughout the weekend, that it's on the brink of shipwreck.
(The official motive for Benedict's trip was to mark the 1,950th anniversary of St. Paul's famous shipwreck on Malta, described in chapters 27-28 of the Acts of the Apostles. The image was so pervasive during the trip that Air Malta christened the flight carrying the pope back to Rome "Flight 1950.")
For the first time in a long time, Benedict XVI even seemed to make a bit of progress on the sex abuse front. The pontiff met with a group of eight victims of abuse in a local church-run orphanage in the 1980s and 1990s, and afterwards participants described a moving encounter in which even the pope had tears in his eyes.
A written Vatican statement afterwards said the pope had pledged that "the church is doing, and will continue to do, all in its power to investigate allegations, to bring to justice those responsible for abuse and to implement effective measures designed to safeguard young people in the future."
Lawrence Grech, the primary spokesperson for the victims in Malta, said the experience had a powerful personal impact.
"For a long time I haven't gone to Mass, and I had lost the faith," he said. "Now I feel like a convinced Catholic again."
Another victim who met the pope, Joseph Magro, said, "I have made my peace with the church."
This was the third time Benedict XVI has met sex abuse victims during a foreign trip, after the United States and Australia, both in 2008. He also met a delegation of members of "First Nations" from Canada in Rome in April 2009 who had been abused in church-run residential schools.
While organized victims' groups were critical of the meeting as an empty gesture without policy significance, it at least offered an indication that the pope is engaged with the crisis – an important point given that Benedict otherwise did not mention it in Malta, except in an indirect comment to journalists aboard the papal plane that the body of the church is "wounded by our sins."
Overall, the Vatican strategy for the Malta trip mostly seemed to be "let Benedict be Benedict." His five public speeches contained classic themes, including the defense of Christian identity against secularism and relativism, and upholding traditional Catholic positions on contested social issues such as abortion, divorce, and the family.
"You should be proud that your country, alone among the states of the European Union, both defends the unborn and promotes stable family life by saying no to abortion and divorce," the pope told Maltese youth during the Waterfront rally.
During his homily in the Mass at Granaries Square, Benedict warned the Maltese not to uncritically assimilate secular assumptions.
"Remember that the exchange of goods between these islands and the world outside is a two-way process," he said. "What you receive, evaluate with care, and what you have that is of value, be sure to share with others."
The pope also repeatedly called for protection of refugees and asylum seekers. That's an important theme in Malta, which shoulders a disproportionate share of the European burden of caring for African refugees attempting to make their way to the West.
In the end, however, Benedict's brief swing in Malta seemed a trip defined less by its content than by its mood. On Sunday evening, images of the pope smiling and relaxed, in the company of a dozen or so young Maltese aboard a catamaran in Valletta's Grand Harbor, did more than any formal Vatican statement to suggest that he's not heading for the bunkers amid the present crisis.
At a time when the public image of the papacy seems to be in free-fall, Benedict's outing showed that at least in this corner of the Catholic world, and at least for this weekend, he could still count on a strong residue of popular support.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Concrete action is demanded!
Concrete action is demanded!
This is the third time Pope Benedict XVI has apologized to victims of childhood sexual abuse by clerics. Of course his meeting with those individuals had a powerful effect on them. Perhaps, though, this third meeting will prove the charm and concrete actions will be seen to be coming from the pope. One has to hope. But if there is no follow up with real action as was the case in Benedict's previous meetings with victims elsewhere, credibility will quickly begin to sink into the negative numbers area.
__________________________________________________
HOLDING CLERGY AND CHURCH LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE THE LAW
Professor Marci Hamilton and Sister Maureen Paul Turlish on NPR's Radio Times on WHYY Philadelphia 04/12/2010
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2010/04/12/holding-clergy-and-church-lead...
__________________________________________________
WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP?
In a recent press release from the Holy See, "concerning cases of the sexual abuse of minors in ecclesiastical institutions," Director Fr. Federico Lombardi repeats some of the more clichéd responses and predictable excuses to the church's ever widening problems of sexual abuse, particularly the sexual abuse of minor children.
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=362995
Contrary to what Lombardi says in the press release from the Vatican, the institutional Roman Catholic Church has reacted to the continuing sexual abuse debacle neither rapidly nor decisively and the Vatican continues to distance itself from what has happened in country after country, first categorizing it as an "American problem," then as a "homosexual problem" in the United States in 2002.
The church's response continues to be reactive rather than proactive while minimizing the systemic and endemic abuse of power and authority which enabled and exacerbated it on the one hand while covering it up whenever and wherever possible on the other.
The "wide-ranging context" that Lombardi speaks of is that in countries from the United States, Canada, Australia and Ireland to Austria, the Netherlands and Germany, church authorities have repeatedly and consistently disregarded the institution's own moral and Canon laws as well as the existing laws of the countries' in which these horrific crimes against humanity took place.
The church has lost its way.
If church authorities had done the morally right thing initially, one wonders how many children would have escaped being sexually abused by a particular priest?
As Patrick Wall, a former priest himself, states:
"The Roman Catholic Church has the largest body of knowledge of non-incarcerated sexual offenders in the world."
Who, one has to ask, would have more knowledge of the internal machinations utilized to cover-up and protect sexual predators from public scrutiny than Pope Benedict in his former position as Head of the Holy Office?
While attacks on any individual is regrettable and counter productive, the fact is that Pope Benedict XVI is at the helm of the Barque of Peter. His challenge is to see that current church policy agrees with his statements in something as significant as the recent pastoral letter to Ireland.
What was done by church leadership in the United States, for example, were actions they were forced to take by the pressure of public opinion after records, files and correspondence were forced into the public venue in 2002 by Judge Constance M. Sweeney, a very brave, grounded and principled Catholic woman of Boston, Massachusetts. As the facts show, the bishops of the United States at that time were forced to make the decisions they made even while powerful bishops resisted calls to accountability and transparency every step of the way.
Moreover, while Benedict has accepted two of the proffered resignations from the Irish bishops it is well to recall that not one bishop in the United States was removed from office because of his own complicity and collusion in covering up sexual abuse. Nor has anyone been forced to resign for violating then existing canon law, criminal law or civil law.
Bishops in the United States like Bernard Cardinal Law and his auxiliaries in Boston, who were shown to have been complicit in protecting known sexual predators, should have been removed from office, their resignations tendered instead of being rewarded with a plum position in Rome in the case of Law, or their own dioceses as has been the cases with complicit Boston auxiliary bishops.
Sadly there are also examples of state authorities making deals with bishops that avoided any kind of prosecution, even though some had to admit guilt to get the deal. In a shameless act of pure hubris, the bishops specifically chose not to hold themselves to the same standards of accountability they drew up for ordinary priests.
When are people of good will going to say, enough!
When are state legislators going to change the laws so that justice can be pursued for the thousands upon thousands of victims of childhood sexual abuse who have been unable to access let alone obtain justice?
In most states and probably in most countries, existing criminal as well as civil laws give more protection to sexual predators and their enablers then they do to victims of childhood sexual abuse by anyone. The problems with statutes of limitation which have expired are probably much the same in Germany and other European countries as they have been is in so many jurisdictions in the United States.
This is deplorable and should not be the case.
The removal of all statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children is the single, most effective way to hold predators and enabling institutions accountable before the law. More than that, window legislation allows a set time frame for previously time barred cases of sexual abuse by anyone.
It is possible to change the laws in order to give some semblance of justice to those ravaged at so tender an age. What is needed to effect that change is the will to hold all sexual predators of children accountable along with any enabling individuals or institutions.
The state of Delaware is one of a very few number of states in the United States which has removed all criminal and civil statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children by anyone. It also legislated a two year civil window for previously time barred cases, again, by anyone. That window closed in July of 2009. Delaware also has a civil registry for those judged responsible under civil statutes.
In a civil suit, unlike a criminal suit, the burden of proof that any sexual abuse took place is on the plaintiff. The burden is not on the accused individual or institution to prove innocence, at least not in the United States.
Every victim of childhood sexual abuse should have a right to the pursuit of justice at the very least!
What people seem to forget is that children’s rights are human rights, that children’s rights are civil rights and that the hierarchy, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, has violated those children’s rights in the most profane of ways, not only by covering up for sexual abusers, mostly priests, but also by enabling the further abuse of untold numbers of children by these particular individuals who were known to be dangerous predators.
If Delaware can do it other states and other countries should be able to do it as well, and hold sexual predators and any enabling institutions responsible, especially when those institutions choose to ignore their own internal laws.
I was privileged to testify before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in support of the 2007 Child Victims Law in Delaware.
No rules and no laws of any religious organization or denomination should be allowed to trump the laws of a civilized society where the protection of children is concerned.
Not only should the institutional Roman Catholic Church be held to the highest standard as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it should be leading by example and showing what can and should be done to protect children from sexual exploitation, from what really is another example of trafficking in individuals for purposes of sexual exploitation, nothing less.
By any objective standard the church has grossly violated the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child for decades.
Is it time to formalize those violations as the crimes against humanity they truly are?
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Identifying the Only True
Identifying the Only True God
ALMOST as long as humans have existed, they have had many gods. There have been so many that it is difficult to put an accurate figure on the number of gods and goddesses worshiped throughout the earth—but it runs into the millions.
Having established that there is a God, we now ask, Which of all the gods worshiped throughout the earth, now and in the past, is the true God? That there is only one true God who can be identified as such is clearly stated in the Bible at John 17:3: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."
An Identifying Name
It would be reasonable that any god who has personality would need a personal name to distinguish him from other gods with names of their own. It would preferably be a name designated by the god himself, rather than a name coined by his worshipers.
In this regard, however, a very puzzling fact emerges. While most well-established religions ascribe personal names to their gods, Jews and mainstream churches of Christendom have failed to identify by a distinctive personal name the god that they worship. Instead, they resort to such titles as Lord, God, Almighty, and Father.
Writing in the publication Theology, author David Clines stated the following: "Somewhere between the fifth and the second centuries B.C. a tragic accident befell God: he lost his name. More exactly, Jews gave up using God's personal name Yahweh, and began to refer to Yahweh by various periphrases: God, the Lord, the Name, the Holy One, the Presence, even the Place. Even where Yahweh was written in the Biblical text, readers pronounced the name as Adonai. With the final fall of the temple, even the rare liturgical occasions when the name was used ceased, and even the knowledge of the pronunciation of the name was forgotten." However, no one can say for sure exactly when orthodox Jews ceased to pronounce God's name out loud and instead substituted the Hebrew words for God and Sovereign Lord.
It seems, then, that the very first essential in any quest to identify "the only true God" would be to get to know him by name. Such a search is not at all difficult, for the name of Almighty God, the Creator, is clearly and simply stated at Psalm 83:18: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."—King James Version.
Jehovah or Yahweh?
Whereas the name Jehovah appears in the King James Version and other Bible translations, some prefer to use the name Yahweh instead of Jehovah. Which name is correct?
The most ancient Bible manuscripts were written in the Hebrew language. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the divine name occurs almost 7,000 times and is spelled with four consonants—YHWH or JHVH. These four-consonant words are commonly called the Tetragrammaton, or Tetragram, derived from two Greek words meaning "four letters." Now the question of accurate pronunciation arises because early Hebrew writing consisted of consonants with no vowels to guide the reader. So whether the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton becomes Yahweh or Jehovah depends on which vowels the reader supplies to the four consonants. Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation.
However, consistency favors Jehovah. In what way? The pronunciation Jehovah has been accepted in English for centuries. Those who object to using this pronunciation should also object to the use of the accepted pronunciation Jeremiah and even Jesus. Jeremiah would need to be changed to Yir·meyah' or Yir·meya'hu, the original Hebrew pronunciations, and Jesus would become Ye·shu'a` (Hebrew) or I·e·sous' (Greek). Hence, many Bible students, including Jehovah's Witnesses, feel that consistency favors the use of the already well-known English-language "Jehovah" and its equivalent in other languages.
Does It Really Matter?
Some may argue that it does not really matter whether you address Almighty God by a personal name or not, and they are content to speak of and address God as Father or simply as God. Both these terms, however, are titles rather than names and are neither personal nor distinctive. In Bible times the word for God ('Elo·him', Hebrew) was used to describe any god—even the pagan Philistine god named Dagon. (Judges 16:23, 24) So for a Hebrew to tell a Philistine that he, the Hebrew, worshiped "God" would not have identified the true God whom he worshiped.
Of interest is a comment in The Imperial Bible-Dictionary of 1874: "[Jehovah] is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living."
The True God's Qualities
Just knowing someone's name, of course, does not mean that we know him or her in any depth. The majority of us know the names of leading politicians. Even prominent men and women in other countries may have names that are well-known to us. But simply knowing their names—even how to pronounce them correctly—does not in itself mean that we know these people personally or know what kind of people they are. Similarly, to know the only true God, we need to get to know and admire his qualities.
Though it is true that humans will never be able to see the true God, he has kindly had recorded for us in the Bible many details about his personality. (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18) Certain Hebrew prophets were given inspired visions of Almighty God's heavenly courts. What they describe portrays not only great dignity and awesome majesty and power but also serenity, order, beauty, and pleasantness.—Exodus 24:9-11; Isaiah 6:1; Ezekiel 1:26-28; Daniel 7:9; Revelation 4:1-3.
Jehovah God outlined some of his attractive and appealing qualities to Moses, as recorded at Exodus 34:6, 7: "Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth, preserving loving-kindness for thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin." Don't you agree that getting to know about these qualities of God draws us to him and makes us want to know more about him as a person?
While no human will ever be able to see Jehovah God in his resplendent glory, it is recorded that when Jesus Christ was a man on earth, he actually reflected the type of person that Jehovah God, his heavenly Father, is. On one occasion Jesus said: "The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner."—John 5:19.
So we can deduce from this that Jesus' kindness, compassion, mildness, and warmth as well as his strong love for righteousness and hatred of wickedness are all qualities that Jesus observed in his Father, Jehovah God, while Jesus was with him in the heavenly courts before becoming a man on earth. Thus, when we truly come to know with understanding the full meaning of the name Jehovah, we surely have every reason to love and bless that sacred name, to praise and exalt it, and to trust in it.
Getting to know the only true God in this way is really a never-ending process, as is brought out clearly in the rendering of John 17:3 in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Here the correct tense of the verb "to know" helps greatly, for the present continuous tense is used rather than the simple present tense. Hence, we read: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." Yes, continuing to take in knowledge of the only true God, Jehovah, and of his Son, Jesus Christ, is a process that should never end.
Jesus Christ identified Jehovah as the only true God
The True God Revealed
Thus, the true God is readily distinguishable from the many false gods. He is the almighty Creator of the universe, including planet Earth and mankind upon it. He has a unique personal name—Jehovah, or Yahweh. He is no part of a mysterious triune god, or Trinity. He is a God of love, and he wishes only the best for his human creation. But he is also a God of justice, and he will not forever tolerate those who insist on ruining the earth and fomenting wars and violence.
Jehovah has revealed his determination not only to rid the earth of wickedness and suffering but also to make it a paradise where honesthearted people can live forever in happiness. (Psalm 37:10, 11, 29, 34) Almighty God has now installed his Son, Jesus, as the heavenly King of God's Kingdom, and soon Jesus will usher in that new world of righteousness and restore Paradise conditions to our earth.—Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10.
We hope that you are now more easily able to answer the question, Does God really exist? and to identify the true God.
Another great report John. I
Another great report John. I still feel the Pope is a man of integrity. What mistakes he made would have been what most did at the beginning I mean the Bishops. But when he understood he showed integrity. And I think we all have to remember that he wasn't Pope then.
Anonymous, Just how has
Anonymous,
Just how has Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict shown integrity? It is true that he forced Macial to a monastery, but he did not condemn the sinful misbehavior of his sexual abuse of men and women. It is true that in this matter he acted slightly better than the man he calls John Paul the Great who Benedict has put on a fast track for sainthood. Does he mean that John Paul was a great enabler and misogynist who failed to look into the misbehavior at the Vatican Bank? and what of the sexual scandal and leadership crisis of the Church? Is that saintly behavior?
No the problem is that Benedict has not accepted responsibility for his actions prior to becoming Pope, and how many of these really sinful misbehaving Bishops has HE forced from office after becoming Pope? Do you think that if a Principal of a public school who enabled a rapist teacher to be passed from school to school would remain as a Principal?
No the problem is a Pope and a Vatican leadership that do not have the integrity of a Harry Truman to know that the Buck Stops with them. Another great American President said, “you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can not fool all the people all the time.” The propaganda machine of the Vatican is tying to fool all the Roman Catholics all the time, it is a vain naive attempt.
Benedict as well as most of the Bishops with a few notable exceptions, simply have not the width and breath of character to handle these ethical issues. The structure of the RCC is crumbling from within. Why do you fool yourself to say that Benedict has integrity? You can say he has character but it doesn’t make it so. Benedict could prove he has integrity but so far he has refused to be a leader making our institution ethical. He has instead launched a defense blaming the messengers for his and other Bishops’ sinfulness. The People of God who are following what is going on have found the evil, it is emanating from Rome, the Vatican. The Roman hegemony of power in the Catholic Church is in the process of imploding form inside. Thank God that the People of God recognize that there is more to the Universal Church than Rome and the Vatican and the Bishops appointed by this sinful authoritarian leadership. This leadership has used mental reservation to redefine truth to suit itself. The Bishops and these last two Popes of recent time have made themselves into the people whom Scott Peck referred when he wrote his book, “People of the Lie.” The Bishops and this Pope are certainly fearful to go “The Road Less Traveled” root when it comes to integrity.
May the People of God gain more grace by fearlessly pointing out to this sinful leadership structure and what they have done wrong and that the whole structure must change. The primary usefulness of the Vatican and its leadership has been marginalized to that of a museum by the past two Popes and their Opus Dei supporters.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Benedict shouldn't feel too
Benedict shouldn't feel too smug.
It wasn't Benedict they came out to see but the Pope.
For most it doesn't matter who the Poe is.... the office of Pope is what is important.
And this is indeed sad..... when the Papacy becomes a more important identifying mark than Jesus or the Gospel message, we are indeed in trouble.
(By the way, by the time an eighty something old finds it difficult not to fall asleep at Mass, it might be time to think of retiring, so he can get some well deserved rest. Bishops have mandatory retirement and so should the Bishop of Rome.)
Anonymous April 19 - You
Anonymous April 19 - You must feel pretty clever with your cheap shot about the Pope falling asleep. And the papacy being "more of an identifying mark than Jesus or the Gospel message"? What do you think the Pope does when he goes on these trips? He preaches the Gospel message. Try tuning in sometime.
Substitute the names George
Substitute the names George Bush or Barak Obama in this account, change a few details and you end up with the typical P.R. trip we are so used to in this country--no substance, just the aura of presidentialness and here papalness.
So the Vatican has taken refuge in time-honored hoopla, in Madison Avenue glamour--even to a boat ride with kids.
So, according to John Allen, the handlers are congratulating themselves--nothing untoward, great success and the Pope stayed on message--secularism, divorce, abortion. But what would Archbishop Romero think of this?
I READ THE HOLE ARTICLE.
I READ THE HOLE ARTICLE. THANK YOU FOR SUCH FOR SUCH DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION. SR. ALICIA
As long as the Vatican
As long as the Vatican continues to "Circle the Wagons" around the hierarchy, they will continue to broaden the web of suspicion amongst the people in the pews. The only way they can begin to resolve this dilemma is for those bishops, etc. to stand up, take responsibility for their decisions and then resign their posts!
Is the cult of personality
Is the cult of personality culture that so many in the hierarchy personally depend upon and use as a barometer of their influence really the best model for church leadership? Why does the Vatican have to "strategize" their visit to Malta? This is all to political and maniuplative in the face of a sex abuse atrocity that has effected the entire world. What ever happened to truth and justice? What is the institutional church becoming, a group of men who do what they want, then use calculated codependency and big money to force their view of reality and their version of salvation? This isn't right.
So if a papal event goes
So if a papal event goes well, then the Vatican is all for show and engaging in PR. And if a papal event does not go well, then the Vatican is out of touch and run by idiots.
Is that about right?
CERTAINLY THE POPE was on
CERTAINLY THE POPE was on safe grounds in Malta but it is noteworthy that in that small Catholic nation the ugly spectre of priest sexual abuse was prominent. If that doesn't tell you the global scope of the church's problem with some priests and bishops, then what does?
Secondly, I was a bit taken back that the pope praised Malta for prohibiting divorce. That flashed back memories of Catholic women that I have met who had abusive husbands that beat them, brutually raped them, controlled them and denied opportunities to them. The Catholic women always told me the advise of the male celibate priest in the confessional was to "offer the sufferings up to God" and "endure it." Now that was when the Catholic Church opposed divorce in the U.S.
What, I wonder, are poor women in Malta to do when they have abusive husbands and cannot legally escape them? Forcing women to stay in a very bad marriage does not promote family values, I assure you. There are better ways to promote the family.
I am not sure the pope's visit in Malta, even his praiseworthy public relations visit with abuse victims, indicates any change in the culture of Catholic priests and bishops who see the world in their own eyes rather than in the eyes of victims.
Could someone please tell me
Could someone please tell me how meeting with victims of sexual abuse for thirty minutes could produce any type of healing. Their stories are heart wrenching and could not possibly be heard in thirty minutes. This is another maniuplative moment for the press.
Child Abuse, Sexual Abuse by
Child Abuse, Sexual Abuse by Clergy
I’m still waiting for your call, but in the meantime, I’m quite happy to provide you with a free consultation because it’s so important that you get this right.
So let me suggest some fine tuning to your efforts this past week. Please pass this memo on to your PR people.
1. Stop talking about being “under attack.” “Now, under attack from the world which talks to us of our sins, we can see that being able to do penance is a grace and we see how necessary it is to do penance and thus recognize what is wrong in our lives,” the said pope at a mass in the Vatican.
The public, survivors and the media lifting up the sins of the church is not an attack. It is truth-telling and an opportunity for it the take a hard look at itself in order to repent. It is Nathan’s voice: “You are the men.” Every time you lead with being “under attack,” you signal the Vatican’s defensiveness and undercut any sincerity of your own self-awareness and repentance.
2. Penance is not just about seeing what we have done. It is about action to address the injustice and harm we have caused.
It’s not “the Church” that needs to do penance. It’s individual bishops and priests, yourself included, who need to name it and claim it: you screwed up, big time. Perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of malice. But that doesn’t matter to the thousands of people who suffer still from your missteps and acts of abuse.
3. Clarifying your reporting policy is a step in the right direction. But let’s clarify your policy even further. “The Vatican on Monday responded to allegations it long concealed clerical sex abuse by making it clear for the first time that bishops and clerics worldwide should report such crimes to police if they are required to by law.”
This just says you now plan to follow the law in whatever jurisdiction the church is in. But there are states in the U.S. where clergy are not required to report child abuse. [That’s another discussion] What you need to make clear is that it is the Church’s policy to report the abuse of children regardless of the requirements of the law because it is the right thing to do and the only way to even have a chance to protect other children from harm. This policy would tell us that you are serious about intervening to stop abuse of kids.
4. Keep meeting with survivors as you did in Malta.
You should meet with survivors every day for the rest of your life. You should have to look them in the eyes, see their pain, and make yourself accountable to them because you do represent the whole Church to them. Next Lent, it is their feet you should wash. And every Lent thereafter.
5. Finally, stop talking about homosexuality as the cause of pedophile priests.
“The Vatican's second-highest authority says the sex scandals haunting the Roman Catholic Church are linked to homosexuality and not celibacy among priests.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, made the comments during a news conference Monday in Chile, where one of the church's highest-profile pedophile cases involves a priest having sex with young girls.
‘Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and pedophilia. But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true," said Bertone. "That is the problem.’”
Really. This just makes your people look ill-informed and ingenuous. It is another tired, old smoke screen. You have gay priests and straight priests. And you have priests that have abused children and adults in both groups. Get over it and get on to addressing the problem of abuse by clergy.
So call me. I’m waiting by my cell phone.
Rev. Dr. Marie M. Fortune
Founder and Senior Analyst
FaithTrust Institute
The RC Church needs a heavy
The RC Church needs a heavy and radical pruning (refer Jesus's words) beginning with the Vatican. As a Catholic I ask myself: Did Jesus really intend all this Vatican stuff: the pomp; the dressing up; the lace and long trains; the bowing and scraping; the very expensive robes; an arrogant and deaf hierarchy etc.
Post new comment