The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionA hierarchy deeply damaged from within
Jul. 08, 2010
Pope Benedict XVI celebrates the pallium Mass in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican June 29. The pope bestowed the pallium on 38 archbishops from around the world. (CNS/Paul Haring)
An NCR Editorial
The first half of 2010 has been a particularly bumpy patch for the papacy of Benedict XVI. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. This pope had as goals to sharpen the teaching of the world’s largest Christian denomination, to do battle with secularism and relativism, and to convince the world, Catholic and otherwise, that Christianity authentically lived is more about possibilities and new freedom than about “thou shalt nots” and other restrictions.
His program has been seriously sidelined by the lingering effects of the sex abuse scandal in the United States; the explosion of the scandal in Ireland, Germany, Italy and now Belgium; and the diminishment of the episcopal office, particularly in those countries most affected by the scandal.
Are we witnessing the ecclesial equivalent of one of those slow-motion depictions of implosion, the kind where a seemingly invulnerable structure falls in upon itself, laid waste by some well-placed explosives? Perhaps.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that what is imploding is the church. The church is, in many ways, just fine. What is imploding, rather, is a culture of clericalism, especially the hierarchical layer of that culture, which has become so disconnected in many of its expressions from the core mandates of Christian scripture that it seems to barely function at all.
The authority that has been slowly leaking from the structure for decades is now gushing out as bishops contort themselves in attempts to convince the world of their good intentions and transparency while simultaneously railing against those within the church and without who are working to reveal the truth.
The shocking raid of a bishops’ meeting in Belgium is but the latest indication of the degree to which the old protections and privileges enjoyed by the clerical culture are disintegrating. It stands as a clear symbol that an age is ending. The disintegration could be seen occurring during the past quarter century in the United States under the grinding weight of revelations that the Catholic hierarchy had repeatedly protected those who had sexually molested children and had hidden the crimes from the church and the wider community.
It continued in Catholic Ireland, where the deep betrayal of the community caused a serious exodus from the church amid lingering anger. In one of the greater absurdities of this period of crisis, church leaders in Rome have decided to send bishops from the United States to determine what happened in the Irish church.
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.
The erosion goes on, at a quicker pace, ugly in details that keep heaping up for the world to see. The pope’s brother admits to slapping choir students who didn’t perform properly -- a human imperfection made all the more perceptible in an arena long wrapped in a façade of seeming perfection.
Meanwhile, the world outside this favored culture is beginning to realize that one of the most powerful men within it during Pope John Paul II’s papacy, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, once secretary of state and now dean of the College of Cardinals, took money from the likes of the late Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ. Maciel was a favorite of the former pope, and a man who abused his young seminarians and is accused of fathering children, including a son, whom he also allegedly repeatedly abused.
Sodano was one of Maciel’s most ardent backers.
That Sodano should be nowhere near any level of control at the Vatican is apparent to most everyone who has given this scandal the slightest thought. But there he is, still posturing, offering paeans to a beleaguered pope during liturgies, and dismissing the growing chorus of charges against fellow bishops as petty gossip.
And when one of those fellow bishops, Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn of Austria, dares to call him out, as someone should, in one of the more rational comments that anyone inside the culture has yet made, Sodano is able to manipulate a meeting with Schönborn and the pope. The world is subsequently informed that such criticism is not to occur cardinal to cardinal. Such power is reserved for the pope alone. The pope remains silent and Sodano remains influential.
The protection from scrutiny previously enjoyed by the culture, a reflection more than anything of royal prerogatives and palace behavior, has disintegrated to the point where the U.S. Supreme Court gave approval for a suit that seeks to hold the Vatican responsible for the transfer of pedophile priests from place to place, transfers that occurred without warning to law enforcement bodies or to the communities involved.
The sex abuse crisis, as we’ve said in this space before, is a crisis of the clerical culture, a crisis of authority and ecclesiology. The sex abuse crisis is the awful symptom of much deeper problems.
Projection is occurring on a global scale as the bishops grasp for ways to explain how so much has gone so wrong so quickly. Relativism! Secularism! Cultural influences! All those bad things out there, they reason, are influencing the people to revolt, to backslide, to not believe as they should, to disregard the hierarchy’s rulings and pronouncements. It is the bishops who fail to recognize that they, themselves, are the best living examples of the relativism and secularism they decry.
The great irony in all of this, of course, is that the hierarchy need not thrash about wondering how to adjust their culture and lives to the demands of an educated church in the 21st century.
The great questions of this age -- and its demands for accountability and transparency -- were anticipated by the church, which began to deal with them during the Second Vatican Council, the reform gathering of the mid-1960s.
There was reason -- perhaps the Spirit responds when so many openly seek its guidance -- why the texts of that council’s documents were different from any before, why those texts are filled with notions of dialogue, of acceptance, of restraint in judgment and punishment, of the new description of church as the people of God.
Perhaps those at the council anticipated that the hierarchy of the future would have to structure itself differently, lead differently, and see the world differently.
What seems clear at this moment is that the hierarchy as it has evolved in the past half millennium is deeply damaged from within. And there is little evidence of the imagination, the creativity, the spirit, necessary to repair or rethink the structure.
The second half of 2010, it seems, may be just as disheartening to the Holy Father, just as bumpy, as the first.
Cleaning a wound can be a
Cleaning a wound can be a painful process, but it is a necessary step toward healing.
"The sex abuse crisis, as
"The sex abuse crisis, as we’ve said in this space before, is a crisis of the clerical culture, a crisis of authority and ecclesiology. The sex abuse crisis is the awful symptom of much deeper problems."
One wonders if church leaders believe that not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.
At any rate there shoud be no accomodation in law that gives more protection to sexual predators and those who enable and protect them than it does to the victims of childhood sexual abuse because they are members of any religious denomination.
HOLDING CLERGY AND CHURCH LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE THE LAW
Professor Marci Hamilton and Sister Maureen Paul Turlish on NPR's Radio Times on WHYY in Philadelphia, April 12, 2010
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2010/04/12/holding-clergy-and-church-lead...
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victms' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Sister All due respect, but
Sister All due respect, but the abuse crisis is a story about the 1960d and 1970s. That is very clear from the data, as is the fact that is is now over.
The Bishops formed from that unfortunate error, like the abusers Weakland or Bernardin, or the enablers like Cummins and Law, are moving on finally. Our new leaders like Gomez and Bambera and Dolan are free of those silly ideas.
How in the world can you be
How in the world can you be so sure of that, Scrantonian? But I agree, it certainly would be nice if it were so.
JH I'm looking at the John
JH I'm looking at the John Jay data. They show that the sex abuse crisis was focused on the period from JXXIII's calling of the Council to the bare beginning of JPII's papcy. From the 1970s peak, sexual abuse accusations are down 90%.
I'm not metaphysically certain, but the data are pointing that way. And I am heartened that the spirit of VII generation of Bishops (Weakland, Cummins, Mahoney, Bernardin, Law) are moving on and our leadership (Dolan, Bambera, Gomez) is improving, quickly.
Very good point! All theology
Very good point! All theology aside, an institution cannot last long without the rule of law. I think it was quite a few years from the calling of the Council until the decay started to set in. The years the Council was going on were still stable ones in the Church. I know I was there as a teen in an all boys Catholic high school.
An interesting personal point. Some years ago when my mother was still in a nursing home when this scandal broke, she told me when she was watching tv, they had a special on this & that they would flash the pictures of the alleged victims when they were young. She said to me, "Paul, they looked just like you when you were in blankety Catholic hs!" And I can state categorically having been around brothers & priests & friendly with them, that I who looked like these alleged victims was never, ever approached in any inappropriate way.
Funny these people talk about
Funny these people talk about abuse happening only after the council. Many abuse cases here in Canada go back to the 1950s.Remember in the 60s,70s media & information became ever more accesible whereas before it was much easier to cover up scandals in the church. You go back to Renaissance times & medieval---Popes committed adultery,incest,fornication. One early council dealt with sexual abuse of minors by clergy
I have no doubt that the
I have no doubt that the sexual abuse rate became much higher than ever due to the turmoil caused among the clergy and their sudden impression that anything goes after the Council. One radical change begat 10 more that still have not be cleaned out of the church. Faith simply weakened. I remember priests openly but quietly living with a mistress right in the rectory. The fact is a certain small percentage (2-4%?)of males are homosexual. The bulk of the abuse was by homosexual priests. The church's attitude of passsing them around and getting them some therapy is even more than what was done during the same period in public sectors. Federal laws refused to accept the problem also and has refused to allow lawsuits for compensation against the government. Organizations like S. N. A. P. sole reason for being certainly is the millions of dollars from lawsuits while ignoring the much larger problem in the public arena of sexual abuse. I cannot and do not justify the church for it's "medieval" policy of "rank has it's priviledges." We all know that the huge majority of priests are and were good priests, frailties or not.
Who says the clergy had the
Who says the clergy had the impression that "anything goes" after Vatican II? That simply was not true.And what of those "radical changes" do you think still need to be "cleaned out" of the church? Mass in English? Nuns wearing street clothes? Tlaity being encouraged to read Scripture? Prists lived with their housekeeper mistresses well before Vatican II. Sounds as if you are trying to down play the abuse situation in the Church. And shouldn't the Church be held to a higher standard (since they proclaim they are the moral guides)than the rest of society? If they represent Jesus, they should be held to a higher standard.
Dear anonymous, You cite the
Dear anonymous,
You cite the John Jay study. Like every important document "read the fine print". It only uses data prior to 2002. What a joke!. The priest sex scandal in the US first broke in 2002. The data is outdated and misleading (akin to Catholic global leaders). If the Church ever "comes clean" my estimate is several hundred thousands of little boys destroyed. "There eyes are open, yet they can not see".
We will only know if these
We will only know if these new policies are effective when TODAYS children are ADULTS and can speak for themselves.
It is hard to believe that this abuse suddenly stopped after the sixties and seventies.
It is hard to believe that
It is hard to believe that this abuse suddenly stopped after the sixties and seventies.
...
Why is that hard to believe?
Have you seen US crime statistics? Sharp rise in the 1960s/1970s and then a plummet in recent years.
Have you seen similar data on drug use, smoking?
The trial lawyers have been beating hte rushes for 10 years looking for a payday. It's certainly possible that some of the 95% drop will prove to be ephemeral. However, it's unlikely that a 30 year trend will be completely reversed.
Let's be clear: Cardinal
Let's be clear: Cardinal Bernardin's accuser retracted his accusations of abuse. I admire the man very much and would hate for misinformation about him to circulate.
KMS _ Hope I'm not
KMS _ Hope I'm not repeating this reply, but the impoverished dying boy's recantation was never independently confirmed or published, the archdiocese threatened a counter-suit for libel, a large financial settlement was made, which subsequently went to his family, and the cardinal's behavior was supported by others, including his own clergy. Other suspicious actions and asociations involving other gay priests, and possibly a homicide are described by more than one source. As a young cleric, I had great admiration and expectations for "our brother Joseph," and only reluctantly became convinced of his guilt and dishonesty.
The problem existed in the
The problem existed in the 1950s and 1980s and 90s as well. In fact this problem was one of reasons Martin Luther permitted married misters when he broke from the church to form his own church. False charges also exist as Cardinal Bernardin was cleared. What has changed is victims are now believed, and now if charges are made to civil authorities they will likely be investigated. Most Catholics are now willing to report this to civil authorities. A lot of states, including NYS, still do not have law requiring bishops to report abusers to the police this needs to change
6
6
It is in accurate to say this
It is in accurate to say this abuse is in the past and it's time for the bishops to move on. The effects of sexual abuse continue beyond that violation in history. This sexual abuse was a direct result of how power is structured within the heirarchy - and this was at the core of its misuse by clergy (priests, and bishops covering these crimes).
Members of our heirarchy still have not taken full responsibility. We who work or volunteer in our archdiocese are required to complete annually training to make us aware of sexual abuse by church workers. The training video does not show any priest perpertrators - only lay persons are shown on that video. The Archbishop/bishop who narrates the video comes across as having it all together without any danger of molesting a child. That training video made him look very safe, and lay workers/volunteers potentially dangerous for molesting children -- when it really is the other way around - the clergy were the ones who molested children who were taught to not question the authority of the priest.
If you think this issue is resolved, you are gravely mistaken. You may not find sexual abuse of minors recently happening - but the abuse will take another form. The weed has to be uprooted - and the weed is the way clergy are taught to lord power over the people they are called to serve. Canon Law states they "govern" the laity. Jesus never said that. He told His apostles to serve.
Sorry, it is not over. Abuse
Sorry, it is not over. Abuse continues in many and varied ways in our clerical Church as it has for centuries. It is clericalism that must be destroyed in our church. Laity should run all things temporal and have real authority. Spiritual matters should be the work of the clergy---for which they were ordained. But these celibate males want power and money and they will do anything abusive to retain it. Wake up---abuse---including sexual abuse -- is NOT over.
You just continually spout
You just continually spout off Snapper speak! What do you really think went on in the head of a bishop, any bishop, liberal or conservative, when confronted by evidence, not just an accusation of the sexual abuse of an adolescent (over 12) or worse a child (under 12)? Do you really think the bishop's only concern was to protect the image of the Church or to shield the abuser? You think the bishop had no concern for the child? Please answer the question directly.
Do you as a nun have no concern for the image of the Church as the bishops & all loyal Catholics do? How would you handle the situation that the bishop faced? Call the police? If members of a family find out that a family member has fallen afoul of the law, is their first impulse to call the police? There is a whole lot more going on in the abuse crisis then concern for the alleged victim. Maybe you should wake up to that reality!
When someone comes along with an accusation of sexual abuse, a very serious problem starts since it involves two people, not one. The only consideration here is not just the alleged victim. The person accused can have his life ruined. Indeed once an accusation of this kind is made, the ruin of the reputation of the accused actually begins. No smoke without fire we all say. At least three priests accused of abuse have killed themselves. Does this make you happy?
I would suggest that you examine this crisis from stem to stern in all its details before you continue on in your knee jerk support for victims. You, as a nun, are a representative of a Church which has priests accused of wrongdoing which they may not be guilty of.
Even if they are guilty of something, it is not your place or mine to pass judgment on them. This is most especially true of the dead priests who have been accused of abuse. Fully, 1/3 of the alleged victim's claims are against dead priests who cannot defend themselves.
Paulte. What planet do you
Paulte. What planet do you live in? Do have children? In addition to the few perverts pretending to be priests, the biggest problem was Bishops that protected and transferred them around (according a reported in the Dallas Morning News from 2002, 2/3 of US Bishops were involved in the cover-up). This allowed prominent priests like Fr Maciel to be protected, despite 50 years of evidence against him, presumably because of the $$$ and influence he brought in. This is called corruption and criminality. How can Bishops preach protecting the “most innocent”, while covering up criminal activities towards children? The Church has still not acknowledged the fault of the Bishops and the Curia in this mess. Until this happens, the Church will continue to loose credibility. How hard is it to say “we screwed up, we are going to take responsibility”? BTW, the last time I checked, a 12 or 13 year old, is a child, or are you now also blaming the children?
>>>Do you really think the
>>>Do you really think the bishop's only concern was to protect the image of the Church or to shield the abuser? You think the bishop had no concern for the child? Please answer the question directly.
Read (if you can bear it) the 2005 grand jury report from Philadelphia:
By RALPH CIPRIANO
Philadelphia
A grand jury that investigated the Philadelphia archdiocese for more than three years has concluded that two former archbishops orchestrated a systematic cover-up spanning four decades that managed to successfully shield from prosecution 63 priests who had sexually abused hundreds of children.
In a 418-page report issued Sept. 21, the grand jury said that the two archbishops -- the retired Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and the late Cardinal John Krol -- “excused and enabled the abuse” by “burying the reports they did receive and covering up the conduct ... to outlast any statutes of limitation.”
The Philadelphia grand jury used blunt language to describe the sex abuse uncovered during the investigation, which they said was often recorded by the archdiocese in more than 45,000 pages of documents from secret archdiocese archives with such “delicate euphemisms” as “inappropriate touching.”
“We mean rape,” the grand jury report said. “Boys who were raped orally, boys who were raped anally, girls who were raped vaginally.”
The church records, once kept under lock and key in a room at archdiocesan headquarters accessible only to the archbishop, the secretary for clergy and their aides, contained accusations of “countless acts of sexual depravity against children.” The cases involved a total of 169 priests and hundreds of alleged child victims. The records were turned over to Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham after multiple subpoenas were served on officials at the archdiocese. The grand jury chose to investigate the acts of 63 priests in their report.
Related story: Shining light on a cover-up: A priest and a prosecutor detail how it happened
People should realize that
People should realize that the calling of this grand jury was a transgression of the law by an anti-Catholic prosecutor in the City of Philadelphia. This grand jury was not able to recommend even one prosecution because every single case examined was beyond the statute of limitations. This was known full well by the prosecutor in question when she convened the grand jury. All the tax money spent was wasted. But the prosecutor achieved her end which was to make the Catholic Church look bad.
One thing which is undeniable in the abuse crisis was the attempt by prelates in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia & elsewhere to protect the reputation of the Church. This was their main concern. And since the Church is both human & divine, this desire to protect the reputation of the Church was not a bad thing. Shouldn't the first concern be for God? So, I would have to say that to protect the reputation of an institution which is partially divine should be the primary concern.
Just because this is the primary concern does not mean that there are not other concerns among which are the reputation of priests & the welfare of children to include a general sense of safety in the Church for all people. I don't think these two concerns can be ranked. I think they are both equally important.
The abuse crisis has shown us that actual cases of pedophilia were very rare. I think that once a bishop knew he was facing a true case of pedophilia, he should have made every attempt to defrock the priest. I would define a child as someone under the age of 12. In cases of this sort, the bishop should have gone to the police once he had moral certitude & clear evidence that the priest was guilty.
The rest of the cases are something else & they reflect a sexual sickness in society which has invaded the Church. I don't fault the bishops for the way they handled these cases since it is debatable how they should have been handled. I would say that when you are talking about adolescent boys (12 & over) for the most part they had the ability & the obligation to reject the advances of the predator priests. In the Netherlands today a child of 12 can have sexual relations with an adult provided his parents consent. This is the kind of world we live in today like it or not.
Psychologists can determine where the age of consent should be set but I would think that any adolescent boy over the age of 14 except for a mentally defective one could have said no. This whole question of the age of consent is completely ignored by those who continue to press this issue against the Church.
Also, the age of sexual majority in canon law is 16 but Rome has foolishly allowed the American bishops to use the legal age of 18 which is patently ridiculous. The raising of the age of consent has only led to the loss of millions of dollars by the Church. No matter how the bishops handled this situation in the past the way they have handled it since Dallas is a total capitulation to alleged victimhood & a complete legal & financial disaster!
Ok, I see, so now the Church
Ok, I see, so now the Church is saying that an adult having sex with a middle school child is "sort of ok", because "This is the kind of world we live in today". Bravo! Hey, Polanski did it, after all, right? According to the John Jay report 4% of US priest were involved, that means a child had a 1/25 chance of encountering an abusing priest. That is not "rare". But worse is the fact that the MAJORITY of Bishops were covering up. It took pressure from the SECULAR world to start bringing change. If they were concerned about God, they would be concerned about children. Read the Bible.
"Sort of ok," where did I
"Sort of ok," where did I imply that? According to Catholic moral teaching any use of the generative instinct outside the context of marriage is objectively wrong & always at least the matter for mortal sin. I was simply drawing a distinction between crimes of pedophilia & crimes of ephebiophilia.
Taking advantage of a little child is not the same thing as using the services of a teenage hustler of 15. Distinctions are to be drawn between various sins. Distinctions must also be drawn between what is against the moral law & that which is against the civil law.
"teenage hustler" Is that
"teenage hustler" Is that what they were? Blame the children? What is wrong with you??? For your information, in most states it's a crime for an adult to have sex with a 15 yo (and still very much a child at that age). It is this kind of immoral “logic” that leads to real criminal acts being committed. Its is because of this kind of thinking that the church has zero credibility at present. How can we talk about self-respect and respect of others to teenagers, let alone adults or politicians, when people in the church make such contorted, twisted, immoral statements??? How will we even make a dent on abortion? Lots of prayers!
Paulte, You are one sick
Paulte,
You are one sick puppy. "The church is both human and divine," so its first concern is to protect God? Who is your God who needs "protection?" You would define a child as a person under age 12? I know with certainty that you are not a parent. You sound pretty creepy to me, a mother of three and a grandmother of eight. How do you know that the prosecutor was anti-Catholic rather than anti-child abuse? Try just saying "no" to a rapist who is bigger, older, stronger and in most of these cases, in a position of authority. God does not need the protection of the church, but children do.
Gram I think social science
Gram I think social science defines 'post pubescent' as above 12 years of age.
Why in God's green earth
Why in God's green earth should any 12-14 year old boy have to deal with sexual advances from a priest in the first place? I teach CCD, I've been through Virtus Training, and guess what: Despite the many excellent reforms in this area, no one in the church is willing to warn teenagers directly and explicitly that they could be approached by a predatory adult, maybe even a priest.
The are many reasons we don't want to talk about it: It's uncomfortable, some believe such conversations deprive children of their innocence too early in life, or that bringing up the subject could alienate young people from the church. The church is also afraid that doing so will encourage kids to make false accusations that would not have otherwise occurred to them. Very few parents talk to their children about the subject for the same reasons, and all of these reasons have a certain validity. Unfortunately our reluctance to talk openly to teens about trusted adults-turned-predators is leaving kids too ignorant to protect themselves.
I offered to create a workshop for teens in my parish on this subject, including the laws in our state about sexual consent and statutory rape, and t appropriate social boundaries between minors and adult authority figures. I wanted to put all of that in the context of church teachings about sexuality and adult responsibility. The DRE passed my suggestions on to the person in charge of such matters for the diocese. They were ignored.
So your statement that "any adolescent boy over the age of 14 except for a mentally defective one could have said no" is unrealistic. We do not prepare our children for the possibility that our clergy (and other authority figures like teachers and coaches) could betray their trust so heinously. Adults who take advantage of children and adolescents use their innocence, ignorance, respect for authority and confusion about their own sexual feelings as weapons against them.
We are not fighting back hard enough. It is unfair to limit our instruction to "Thou shalt not have sex until you're married" and "homosexuality is a sin" and then blame minors (even partially) when they're too shocked and confused to fight off the advances of an adult they've been taught to respect. And it's unfair to blame them for not speaking up right away because they are too embarrassed or because they've been led to believe by their molesters that THEY are to blame for what happened. By suggesting that teens "could have said no" and bear some responsibility when an adult (who does know better) manipulates them, you are helping perpetuate the cycle of abuse and silence.
I do not think that this is your intent, Paulte. I admire your willingness to stand up for the church; too many people are happy to stereotype all Catholic priests when many good, decent, caring men. However, you clearly don't understand the dynamics of sexual abuse. Please read up on the subject. We need to teach kids how to recognize predatory manipulation and what to do if they are molested.
Praying for a better world and a stronger church,
--MB
Not a wound, dear Marsha, but
Not a wound, dear Marsha, but a boil that must be lanced!
Some wounds weep for years
Some wounds weep for years and the only way to close them is to cauterize them.
Right on! However how do we
Right on! However how do we support or bring about the reform that is nedded? We need a way to make sure that our voices are heard. Without constant pressure nothing will change.
Jim Collins: You are correct
Jim Collins: You are correct "Without constant pressure nothing will change."
On a personal level reforms need to speak about the scandal as a world wide abuse of power because many in the church keep hearing that the scandal is only a "priest sex abuse scandal." The sexual abuse of a child by a pedophile is an ABUSE OF POWER because the adult uses their power to seduce and coerice the child. As such the abuse has little to do with sex. It is more akin to rape which is a crime of power. Second the bishops' cover-up of the original crimes is also an ABUSE OF POWER against children. Thirdly the people in the pews must know that the bishops' ABUSE OF POWER is WORLDWIDE including the Vatican.
Lastly on a parish to PARISH LEVEL petition drives must begin to allow people to give voice to their outrage. Currently there is no organization on the parish level giving voice to reform that is aimed at prevention or expressing grievance at the hierarchy's secrecy and lies. Until that begins to happen the people in the pews are voiceless.
Millstones around their necks
Millstones around their necks and thrown into the sea was Jesus' pescription. But all we do, at best is petitions and committees. I don't think so.
Short of stampeding right out
Short of stampeding right out of the Church, the People of God have no choice but to pressure their hierarchs to establish a National Synod with the Primate, the archbishop of Baltimore for the US Church, as it's Patriarch. The first act on it's agenda is the calling of Vatican III, or a new ecumenical council. This time to include Orthodox and Protestant voters as well as observers.
Continued acts of obeisance by bishops to this decaying bag of not-so-holy bones with a compliant and approving College of Cardinals now constitutes a grave sin whereby the bishops themselves become active accessories to very possibly criminal conduct committed in Rome and continuing to be committed there.
If priests aren't "employees" of the Vatican, as the pope's lawyers are now arguing, the bishops surely aren't either. They're higher in the chain of command and at their consecration promise obedience to the pope a priest does not do. Archbishops are lashed to the pope's mast even more so, by their acceptance of the pallium.
Since bishops owe their jobs to, must report to, and can be removed by the bishop of Rome, the worlds bishops are indeed his employees. They must now sever allegiance and their fealty they owe to Rome. They, and we, owe nothing more than "assent in council"(not just a pan-Roman synod, but a truly ecumenical council) to Pope Benedict's dogmatic pronouncements and nothing more than that.
Benedict is there to "confirm the brethren". Nobody elected him Archon of the World or High Priest of the Earthly Jerusalem. Autocracic behavior, all manner of immoral and illegal machinations behind the scenes, and every type of scullduggery, defamation of character, and obstruction of justice have no justification in scripture, sacred tradition, or can these acts be justified within the context of modern democratic and Catholic society.
Pronouncements which now are coming hot and heavy without a scintilla of cooperation with clergy or laity constitute a breach with the Second Vatican Council and are therefore invalid. Catholics owe no allegiance, whatsoever, to the perpetrators of prevarication and perversion. No matter how high up they may be, or how impressive their titles and vesture may make them out to be.
Until a new worldwide architecture of governance and consultation between the People of God and their duly elected hierarchy is established at the local, diocesan, and national levels ,what passes for the Universal Pastorate of a shepherding Peter, looks more and more like the last gasps of a vain effort to breathe life into this relic of Caesarian/Papal autocracy. Just a futile trip down memory lane to carry us back to the merry old days of 16th century ultramontanism and the absolutism which marked European society prior to the Enlightenment. Now and under Pope John Paul II curiously blended with a dying breed of equally aging European forces of reaction verging on taking refuge in state fascism. Always popular with benighted forces, out of touch with their times, here in the USA within the ranks of the clergy and laity.
Pope Benedict's desperate attempt to re-assert his power and influence, at the expense of collegiality, will simply serve the purpose of sending a fresh round of torpedoes into his sinking bark.
Pope Benedict did not really
Pope Benedict did not really want the job he is now in. That may be one of the reasons he is most qualified for it. There are other reasons.
Too many people are always power mad. I do not think that is the case with him.
If all you are concerned about is "power and influence" as your post suggests then I hope you never have a position of power.
"Pope Benedict did not really
"Pope Benedict did not really want the job he is now in."
Uhm, I suspect your "take" on his papal ascendance is mistaken.
B16 lost no time in taking steps to get his "smaller but purer" church. He's been hell-bent in trying to restore a triumphalist model of church.
I do, though, have a west coast orange bridge to sell ya'.
Yes, a papacy built upon a
Yes, a papacy built upon a foundation of personal whim and preference. His own special preserve (as in Leo X's famous remark to the Venetian ambassador, "now we can enjoy the papacy together"). Rather than coming to grips with the world as it is and not how he thinks it should be.
Anal retentive old men often think this way and he's got a bad case of the disease.
"Smaller but purer" is a far
"Smaller but purer" is a far cry from "sadder but wiser."
Petulant arrogance has become one of the defining Marks of the Church, the church that used to call herself mother. Now she is stern school marm, quick to snap, snip and send to stand in the hallway.
I used to believe the old adage that "just because your mother is a whore doesn't mean that she is still not your mother." I'm not sure that holds water anymore.
Dear Joseph Jaglowicz, Of
Dear Joseph Jaglowicz, Of course you were intimately involved during the Conclave which had as a result the election of Pope Benedict the XVI. You spent many hours in prayer along with all the Cardinals and you rejoiced along with all the billion and a half Catholics word-wide upon the outcome. There are others on the planet Earth who have bridges to sell. Our bridge is called TRUTH and it's only " color " is white!
I think Ratzinger really did
I think Ratzinger really did want the job!
Ratzinger definitely wanted
Ratzinger definitely wanted the job and he has made a mess of it. The Spirit is working thru the community not this power hungry prelate.
What rubbish! I cannot
What rubbish! I cannot believe NCR printed this!
"What rubbish! I cannot
"What rubbish! I cannot believe NCR printed this!"
You will thank NCR for it someday, believe it or not. Because what will be revealed in the forthcoming days will make everything you've seen so far look as mild and innocent as a southern Baptist sunday social.
Why, exactly, are you in the
Why, exactly, are you in the Church of Rome?
Two home runs in one day!
Two home runs in one day! First the piece about Bishop Kevin Dowling and now this. We're on the precipice of something new, something extraordinary. I can just feel it!
In “The Way”, Escriva says in
In “The Way”, Escriva says in the section about personal Holiness, “The standard of holiness that God asks of us is determined by these three points: Holy intransigence, holy coercion and holy shamelessness.” Where, oh where, does that come from? We now have to obediently cheat and lie to keep a movement viable, as the way holiness? These concepts are not part of the time tested Virtues carefully examined by Thomas Aquinas. In fact, these are closer to vices. The church hierarchy is saying that it wants to go back to a “purer” form of Catholicism. Fine, the clergy should be guardians of the Sacraments. But it seems that they make up “tradition” to serve their own purpose. Over the last couple of decades, a lot of “double speak” was introduced, largely by right wing forces in the Church, for self serving reasons. Now strict obedience to a movement, is the only form of “Charity”. Maciel just copied OD operation procedure and plagiarized the spirituality. Both movements use standard psychological coercive techniques, developed by secular movements in the 20th century (the “isms”). This new “theology” justifies the sex and financial scandals cover ups, to allow criminals like Maciel to flourish. It works: it bring $$$ to the coffers, influence, and pseudo “orthodoxy”. One now understands why people in the past, in desperation, called for “Sola Scriptura”. But Sacraments are real to most of us Catholics. The hope is that the Church will have the courage to say “We, the Bishops made terrible mistakes by hurting children, we take full responsibility for its reparation and justice”. The hope is that Church will understand that treating lay as unthinking children or brain washed obedient movement zombies, is to its detriment. That working together as people of God, with free will, Faith and reason, will make it stronger. The hope is the Church will replace “intransigence, coercion and shamelessness” with Love, Faith, Hope, Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude, with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, as the path to holiness.
Fascinating perspective. I
Fascinating perspective. I would love to see an article about this.
Anyone who has read Escriva's
Anyone who has read Escriva's little book, The Way, will know that the values it reflects are not Gospel values. My own personal favourite among the maxims contained in The Way is 592: "Humble yourself. Don't you know you are a garbage can?" No doubt Jesus of Nazareth spoke like this every day to his disciples. Unfortunately the late Holy Father lacked discernment in these matters.
I can't think of any famous
I can't think of any famous Catholic writer from the pre Self Esteem Movement days who didn't talk like that. Even St. Francis of Assisi referred to his body as "Brother Ass."
However, as a Jewish psychiatrist once remarked to me, "The people of Catholic countries generally seem to be happy people." I travel a lot and I agree.
Go figure.
C S Lewis praises Francis for
C S Lewis praises Francis for calling the body Brother Ass: "'Ass' is exquisitely right because no one in his senses can either revere or hate a donkey' as opposed to Neo-Pagan glorification and Manichean disparagement of the body. (The Four Loves, 1969, p. 93).
Escriva has many distasteful statements, but he always keeps inside the boundary of orthodoxy (so that he got to be canonized).
?Canonized? He was beatified
?Canonized? He was beatified within 2 years of Maciel being extolled as “an efficacious guide of youth.” I guess the same insight was used for both. The same forces dismantled the age old position of critic of the saint to be, in order to expedite Escriva’s canonization. This was at a time when OD members and sympathizers were powerfull at the curia, JP2 was ill and the cover up of Maciel was in full swing. Even the “miracle” was not properly vetted. It was a self-reported healing of a rash, without a biopsy. Without the persistence of people like Berry, Maciel may have gotten away with the same. Maciel even had a crypt ready in Rome, modeled on Escriva's mausoleum that has “Padre” written on it. “Orthodoxy”? How is worshiping “little things” even Christian? What are “little things”? Apparently it is not washing one’s own underwear, as that is way “too little”, and needs to be done by special, thought reformed, indentured servants, the Numerary assistants. Apparently "little things" is doing ones spread sheet well, obey (their definition of “Charity”, ref. The Way)and give all of ones money to the movement. It does not take a financial wizard to realize that if one has, say, 10,000 lay professionals that sign “spiritual contracts” that forces them to give away most of their earnings, and 70,000 that give 10% away, that this adds up to an annual “very big fortune" in the pockets of those that control it. Nothing wrong with that, as long as people are not manipulated. But these “contracts” are not “vows”, because this allows them to circumvent canon law. To recruit and retain members, "coercion, shamelessness and intransigence" are all ok, because "Padre" said so, its THE way to holiness. But one has to be careful, because these people are like soccer players, you touch them, and they fall to the ground, crying “sign of contradiction, martyrdom, my canonization next”.
I thought that our faith teaches us that apparently little things, like reaching out to those we meet every day, making some one smile, are actually "big things." The Hope is that these guys will wake up, come down their high horses, and smell the coffee. The Hope is there will be a serious, rigorous, and faithful examination of all these novel “spiritualities”, how current problems relate to them, amongst others. The Hope is we all can humbly seek the truth. New evangelization needs to start at home. Like I said, we are all in this together.
Poor Pope Benedict. He takes
Poor Pope Benedict. He takes a job only to discover he's walked into a den of iniquity in existence for at least 27 years, if not for centuries. What he didn't bargain on happening was that the veil of secrecy, which has served the intersts of the papacy all this time, is now being lifted and it will continue to be rising from here on in. Gone are the days of a sympathetic world press dutifully genuflecting at the pope's every word.
This isn't unlike a beautiful facade to a mansion suddenly being pulled down to expose a tiny log cabin propping it up. The entire Vatican has to be reeling in shock because, like the "Wizard of Oz", Dorothy and her dog "Toto" have pulled back the curtain to reveal it's all smoke and mirrors operated by an old man living in the past.
On account of an
On account of an out-of-context piece of rhetoric (i.e., not philosophy) which you read as being against Aquinas, you claim to "understand" Sola Scriptura? This comment is about as understanding as it is coherent.
In fact, Escriva (for those who read more than his hate-mail) has a lot to offer contra the "culture of clericalism" decried in the above editorial. He understood that clericalism in the hierarchy goes along with clericalism in the laity--the two are organically related, and they both need to go. Do let's stop talking as though the problems of the Church are an us-vs.-them affair: we're all of us in need of reform.
"On account of.." Your
"On account of.." Your defense in effect amounts to "everybody does it" is at best a disillusional misunderstanding of what is a WORLDWIDE ABUSE OF POWER SCANDAL by the HIERARCHY and the VATICAN. So "no" everybody is not equally guilty. The faithful are only guilty of putting their faith in the hierarchy
which continues to arrogantly trample on the trust they have been given.
That sounded odd, so I looked
That sounded odd, so I looked it up in my copy of The Way published by Image with a 1982 translation. It's number 387 under "Your Sancity" and is translated:
"...holy steadfastness, holy forcefulness, and holy shamelessness" followed by an asterisk.
The note at the bottom of the page, made by Bishop Echevarria, the current Opus Prelate, states: "For Escriva, holy steadfastness (intransigence) is being "firm in the faith" (1Peter 5:9), not abandoning a teaching or practice because it might give others a bad impression. Holy forcefulness (coercion) hearkens back to the gospel parable in which guests are forced to attend the wedding feast (Luke 14:23), and applied to the apostolate means bringing others closer to God by example, prayer, and sacrifices. Holy shamelessness means being unapologetic for one's commitment to Jesus Christ."
I'm not an Opus Dei member, but I do go to a monthly OD "Evening of Recollection" because I love the devotions, and because there is always there is a rather profound homily on one or more particular virtues. My OD confessor very lovingly helps me on the endless path to perfect my soul, leaving my self esteem is unmarred by his lack of a post Vatican II "I'm OK, you're OK" approach in the confessional (where we still kneel).
I also made a OD retreat, but I did a lot of homework before all this. I've no doubt there were some deplorable quasi-cult like abuses in the past in a few OD circles and I don't like the current work of my local OD against gay marriage, but I think otherwise OD has done a lot of housecleaning and it is now certainly not the ominous force Dan Brown and even some Catholics make it out to be. They are very intense in their commitment to the mission of Catholicism, and the organization does very extensive and thoroughly impressive work in academic and vocational achievement, especially for underprivileged women from the women's Lexington College in Chicago to Strathmore University in Africa.
I just wish they would question more deeply their activities with right wing social causes. (BTW, people often cite the OD members in Franco's Spain, but there were also ODs among the Spanish Republicans!)
Did not mean to be unkind.
Did not mean to be unkind. But words are important. Steadfastness is not same as intransigence. There is also Fortitude. For coercion, if you look up the parable of the wedding, there was absolutely no coercion, people were invited. The point I was trying to make is that I don’t understand how slogans extolling “coercion, shamelessness, and intransigence” as a path to holiness, are accepted as new “tradition’, a long side writings of great Saints like Saint Thomas Aquinas, who obliviously spent a lot of time discerning. Why is the centuries old term “Opus Dei”, as described by St Benedict (Payer life of the Church), now changed to mean a specific practice of “coercion, shamelessness, and intransigence”, as described by the movement founder? It seems that there are double standards. When somebody like Sobrino talks about the poor, he is shot down immediately over some obscure technicality, but there is no problem changing vices into virtues in broad daylight, as long this brings money, recruits with an appearance of “orthodoxy”. And yes, we are all in this together, by all means.
The officially Spanish
The officially Spanish version, from the OD sanctioned website is: “El plano de santidad que nos pide el Señor, está determinado por estos tres puntos: La santa intransigencia, la santa coacción y la santa desvergüenza.” The originally posted English quote was from the same website.
Spanish definition of “coacción”
f. Fuerza o violencia que se hace a una persona para precisarla a que diga o ejecute alguna cosa. Diccionario Enciclopédica Vox 1. © 2009 Larousse Editorial, S.L.
“Force or violence that one puts on a person to make that person say or execute something.”
Luke 14:2 “The master then ordered the servant, 'Go out to the highways and hedgerows and make people come in that my home may be filled.”
I don’t see any mention of force in this passage of the Bible, it does not justify coercion.
In the way, Escriva...: "The
In the way, Escriva...: "The hope is the church will replace intrasigence, coercion, and shamelessness..." Sadly I see no evidence of that happening under the current pope. He cannot admit that he, the papacy and the hierarchy have been in error. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he did not even want JPII to admit the historical errors vis-a-vis the inquistion, the Galileo affair, and the treatment of indigenous peoples in the new world. To expect him to accept hierarcical responsibility for a SYSTEM WIDE ABUSE OF POWER is impossible for him to contemplate. To have to not only admit responsibility, but also ask for forgiveness, and actually impose penance on the hierarchy would be a miracle indeed. Without it the papacy and the hierarchy cannot regain their lost credibility and moral authority. The REAL SCANDAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ABUSE OF POWER BY THE EPISCOPAL AUTHORITIES. The people are angry at the BISHOPS not the priests. It is the ARROGANCE of the BISHOPS who are criminals and the Pope who says they are not subject to any laws that is at the heart of B16's problem. Defending the infallibile teaching authority of the hierarchy is what the Vatican sees as at risk. So from Pope Rats you will get no admission of the truth. It will take a new pope from outside Rome to correct this WORLDWIDE ERROR. In the meantime whatever the pope and hierarchy say or do will be regarded as irrelvant, and meaningless. Their words are fodder for stand up comics because laughter is the only relief you can get from the sadness and embarrassment of being a "Roman Catholic."
Pope Benedict is a dangerous
Pope Benedict is a dangerous totalitarian attempting to negate the Second Vatican Council with deceit and by slyly and circumspectly becoming th Chief Enforcer of the Church's will. Totally disregarding the larger "mind of the Church" to advance his own pet theories.
The Church is not the creative expression of the bishop of Rome. For him and his followers to think so is contrary to both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. His Holiness should be seeking the consolation of not only his confessor, but his resident exorcist as well.
Protestants and ,especially the Orthodox Churches, should be watching his every move very closely. Benedict is deliberately trying to scuttle the ecumenical progress with other churches to date while, at the same time, feigning support for Ecumenism in principle. All of this as part of his failed policy of reconciling the SSPX, sedvecantist, and other crypto fascist elements in the Church. Who continue to pull Benedict's strings to this very day.
I don't read Jose Escriva. I
I don't read Jose Escriva. I use his pages to line the birdcage.
Maciel bought his way into the Vatican while committing the most vile, morally despicable, disgusting acts in his personal life and in the so-called "Order" that he founded. John Paul II showed no evidence whatsoever of having or using the spiritual gift of discernment. How could a Pope supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit be so insensitive and obtuse?
"We, the Bishops made terrible mistakes by hurting children, we take full responsibility for its reparation and justice” -- but only if forced to do so by a court of law.
"The hope is the Church will replace “intransigence, coercion and shamelessness” with Love, Faith, Hope, Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude, with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, as the path to holiness." -- This is a beautiful sentiment, but don't count on it happening any time soon. Even now, the College of Cardinals has been saturated with JPII and B16 look-a-likes and act-a-likes, ready to take up the gauntlet of the "reform of the reform" and continue more of the same in their papacy.
I pray that this does not come to pass -- and I believe that prayer can make it so.
We are at an interesting time
We are at an interesting time in the history of the church. Thankfully my faith has not been rocked through all of this.
A point needs to be made about the church in Belgium. If I am correct the Catholic clergy receive a stipend from the government. This may explain some of the freedom the police took in the raid of the cardinal's residence. I doubt that this would ever take place in the US.
I think Cardinal Schönborn's point was made loud and clear no matter what was reported by the Vatican Press. Sodano got the message.
The church will survive with all it's "growing" pains. No need to worry. Not sure it is that deeply damaged.
Have you ever seen the DA's
Have you ever seen the DA's office perform a raid on corporate headquarters or a bank? They confiscate filing cabinets and handcuff executives. Happens in NYCity all the time.
Believe me, raiding the bishop's chancery or the Vatican is not out of the question by any means. This should have been done in New York, Philly, and other places years ago. That way the information would have been out into the open much earlier. To pry it out of the bishops and the Vatican now makes them look even more like criminals.
In the past, the chancery officials managed to escape the exposure and seizure of it's records by placing all sorts of pressure on local law enforcement agencies. That won't happen again. Not in this environment.
Nothing like what happend in
Nothing like what happend in Belgium should happen in the US to a church (Catholic or otherwise). The detestable way that they were held and questioned is sickening. The only thing that makes it even close to justifiable is the fact that this is what happens when you have a group of bishops that teach dissent.
Brett as long as bishops have
Brett as long as bishops have the support of Catholics like you who make it part of your faith belief to believe ministers should not be subject to lowly secular law, they will never feel compelled to live up to Jesus's laws.
The truth is if they lived up to the great laws of Jesus they would never have to fear being taken down by secular laws of Ceasar.
I have seen several of your
I have seen several of your posts and disagree with almost all of them. This is one I agree with wholeheartedly. Clerics should not be immune from secular law. And you are exactly right the real crisis was started by ignoring the teachings of Jesus. I suspect this the point where diverge as I am confident that all of Christs teachings are revealed in their fullness in the Church. But nevertheless is was faithlessness that brought us to where we are.
Alban: "Won't happen again."
Alban: "Won't happen again." That's wishful thinking the Vatican's long view of history means they will persist until the scandal fades from memory. They know it only takes a single generation for it all to go away. Meanwhile they will continue as usual while denying they are resopnsible and will continue spouting the misnomer that the scandal is a sex abuse scandal instead of an abuse of power scandal. They will continue to use misdirection, partial truths, and minimizing such as "it was only less than 1% of priests."In fact the American bishops have alredy gotten away with their crimes since none of them have been prosecuted for their crimes. When criminals get away with crimes and are immune from the law there is no impediment for a repetition of the very same crimes as soon as the environment chages. For example now that the laity in the church are required to go through "protection of children training every year" we are reminded of how our "bishops have reformed" except when you find out that the so-called Dallas Charter of 2002 is a non-binding document and that every bishop is completely free to resume covering up for priests any time they want. There is no limit or check on their abuse of power.
"the misnomer that the
"the misnomer that the scandal is a sex abuse scandal instead of an abuse of power scandal."
This is a very important distinction. Yes, the bishops have done a great deal to address the sexual aspect of the abuse crisis, but they have done zero to address the power aspect. Even the latest norms exempt the bishops from accountability. I think it's really important not to confuse the two issues and allow the hierarchy to snow us that the entire crisis has been dealt with because they have made strides dealing with only one aspect.
Andre, You sound like a
Andre, You sound like a second mate on the Titanic ten minutes after hitting the ice burg..
If I remember correctly, the
If I remember correctly, the Titanic sunk due to improper design. Although Captain Smith drove the vessel so as to set a new speed record, it was faulty design that brought the Titanic to its doom. This cannot happen to the Catholic Church - the design is God's and God said he would be there forever.
Now, before anyone pooh-poohs God's foundation, remember a few things. #1 It was created by God (Jesus). #2 In spite of many wicked popes (and bishops, priests and laity) over the millenia, it continues to exist with its dogmas unchanged. #3 Like Mark Twain, reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.
It is not surprising that the Church is very often a frustration. Even devout Catholics can get upset with its interpretation of current events as divined from Scripture and Tradition. We can assign assessments of Power and Control by the hierarchy, which I think is reasonable, but we still get back to Scripture and Tradition as interpreted. For instance, Paul VI birth control encylical really was predictable even though so many wished for a modification. More surprising was the ruling on in vitro fertilization.
In point of fact, I do believe the Catholic Church is something that people love to hate. Its assertion of infalibility runs counter to everything we understand about humans and, hence, even the slightest hint of malfeasance is pounced upon. Disclaimer: the current crisis is NOT slight.
None of what I said should be taken as making the Church free from error. While a Divine Institution, it is administered by men.
Deacon Bernie, perhaps what
Deacon Bernie, perhaps what I'm about to say may be "pooh-poohing" the Church to you. I don't happen to think so. However I do think your perception of the church is too mechanical, too abstract; not alive; not organic and certainly not totally correct. You say the "design (of the Church/Institution)is God's" You go on to defend "God's foundation" indicating that it "continued to exist with its dogmas unchanged."
Let's start with the obvious: over the course of two millenia plus many dogmas have in fact changed and that's because the Church is NOT a construct, a mechanism. It is organic and changes to meet peoples' needs at specific times in history. Structurally the institutional church adapts some form of governance for the same reasons (the present structure, monarchy, is no longer tenable/viable and should be replaced. The problem, as the article above states, is the clerical culture which refuses to understand this. It is this culture we see imploding, not the Church. Is this bad? Should we worry? No is the answer to both questions. Actually, we should be rejoicing because it shows there's life in the church (People of God) and the Spirit is alive, well and very much in action today just as she has been all along. Some dogmas WILL in fact, change in the near or not-so-near future and that's not bad at all. It's another sign of life for the church Jesus sent into the world to be accompanied and strengthened by the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit.
Post new comment