Twice a day. (updated)
Yesterday, at his indispensable blog Spiritual Politics, Mark Silk pointed out that Justice League President Bill Donohue, PhD, managed to be not wrong about something important. Last week victims attorney Jeff Anderson released a 2003 letter from Archbishop Timothy Dolan (now of New York, then of Milwaukee) to then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger asking that a pedophile priest be laicized. “The public display that will now take place in the criminal trial in California, to say nothing of the civil suits that could arise there, makes the potential for true scandal very real,” Dolan wrote. Anderson called that document a “smoking gun” proving “Dolan’s desire in concert with the Vatican to think about one thing: secrecy and preservation of their own reputation.” Donohue pointed out that in Catholic parlance “scandal”
is defined as “a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another spiritual ruin.” In other words, once the public finds out more about Becker, his misconduct will give scandal to the Church by causing the faithful to question their faith. For that reason, and for his past record, Dolan said he wanted him out of the priesthood.
Mark gave Donohue props for pointing out Anderson’s distortion, and, in a coda to his post, wrote:
If anything has become clear over the past quarter-century, it is that the doctrine of scandal has been the occasion of greater scandal in the Catholic Church than the sexual abuse itself. Nothing has done more to drag the Church into disrepute–and to alienate the laity–than the revelations of cover-up. It’s time for the doctrine to go.
I winced when I read that. Apparently Donohue did too. After claiming Mark lacks “ethical standing” (whatever that is) as a Jew (classic Dr. D.) , Donohue issued a press release titled “The Scandal of Church Critics.” (See what he’s doing there?)
Imagine a Catholic professor telling observant Jews that they need to change one or more of their doctrines. If such a character could be found, I would be the first to tell him to mind his own business.
As Mark correctly notes, the Catholic notion of scandal is a medieval teaching, not a matter of revelation. (Although you’ll find the term in 1 Corinthians and the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John.) Meaning there’s nothing wrong with non-Catholics using common human reason to evaluate it. You might even say it’s natural. So the good doctor is wrong to claim that Mark has no business opining on this particular Catholic teaching. What Donohue doesn’t point out, however, is that Mark doesn’t have it quite right.
Donohue’s definition of scandal is sound. In moral theology, a scandal isn’t simply something that shocks one’s moral sensibilities. Rather, a scandal is an act that could–but doesn’t have to–incite someone to sin or cause his spiritual ruin. Of course, this being a term of art in moral theology–and one rooted in the thought of Thomas Aquinas–there are distinctions to be made. There’s active scandal (the work of the scandalizer) and passive scandal (the suffering of the scandalized). Direct and indirect.
There can be no doubt that Catholic leaders (bishops mainly, but others too) used the notion of scandal to justify keeping damning facts from the faithful. And the police. Philadelphia Catholics have been treated to two scathing grand-jury investigations of their archdiocese. Last month’s report lambastes church officials for hiding a priest’s abusive history from his parishioners. I haven’t found anything in the grand-jury report indicating that church officials were leaning on the notion of scandal–in the theological sense–to justify their sins of omission. (Although it’s certainly possible.) Mark seems to think offending officials’ interpretation of scandal is inherent to the teaching itself. In other words, Mark apparently believes the teaching on scandal necessarily entails secrecy.
Does it? At least, does it any more than the church’s teaching on sin? After all, how many abusive priests were returned to ministry after receiving absolution for their crimes? How many bishops viewed abusers’ transgressions as sins to be forgiven rather than pathological crimes?
No, the notion of scandal cuts to the very heart of the crisis: bishops who were ordained to protect the faith of their people instead were responsible for destroying it. Many of them misused the idea of scandal to protect their own. But it is within the teaching itself that Catholics might find a way through this slough. Because scandalizers are required to make reparations for their offenses. That’s something the archbishop of Dublin understood when he prostrated himself in front of a bare altar before washing the feet of abuse victims.
Update: Read Mark Silk’s gracious response right here.
“Justice League President Bill Donohue, PhD, managed to be not wrong about something important. ”
Honestly, Grant, do you that is an appropriate way for a journalist to begin a story?
And, gentleman, today the dam broke in Philly.
The article about it that I read online
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/21-priests-put-on-leave-after-review-of-suspected-child-sexual-abuse/?hpt=Sbin
shows that years of obfuscation and ‘shell game’ have again backfired and the
‘scandal’ is now front-page.
I don’t suppose that we will ever live in a church which is open and transparent,
and that John XXIII’s Adgiornamento (as I have said before) never became reality – yet –
little by little, everything that the church tries to hide (or hide behind) eventually makes
its way to a front page somewhere.
Rome is fighting a lost battle, and losing credibility (what little is left) each time this happens. And, you can argue canon law this, interpretation of Vatican directives until the pidgeons come home to roost, but arguing and philosophying and getting caught up in talking about the finer points of this writer and the related scripture passages does
nothing to help solve the problem. Yikes, remember the comments about the Cappa Magna!
I realize that a Blog is a forum for discussion, so I don’t blame any of the wonderful writers who being articles and comments to this one.
But, WHEN are the theologians and good presbyters of the American Church going to do what the German Theologians just did (another county heard from).
If all of you who are in the thick of education, theology, commentary, etc… do not band together and send the Vatican a firm, though Catholic message, then who is going to do it?
I don’t see the primarily-JPII-B16-appointed bishops, archbishops and cardinals doing it!
Heck, they didn’t even stand up for the sense and fullness of understanding in the current Roman Missal.
So, how ’bout it? Will you, or someone you know spearhead a meeting of the Top Catholic Thinkers in the US (lay and clergy) and send a pastoral letter to His Holiness?
How low, oh Lord, how low does your church have to sink into the muck and the mire because its leaders sometimes seem to have eggplants for brains.
Please, those of you who can, do something proactive.
Thank you!
The German theologians did not just address the sexual abuse scandal but also raised other questions in their petition. Those questions unfortunately are taking center stage in the media. I don’t think it is helpful to put the recognition of committed same-sex couples or of divorced and remarried Catholics in the same document, and it much lessens its potential impact.
Sending a pastoral letter to His Holiness is, again, action merely by asking the church hierarchy (in this case, the Pope) to act.
We have learnt that church administrators and governors do not know how to handle cases of sexual abuse. They are not competent: for that question, civil justice is the correct venue. In the US the solution is simple: take it out of the hand of dioceses, get rid of their boards for evaluating this or that report of sexual misconduct, and go directly to civil justice. Simple.
In general I believe that the power of the church hierarchy must be curbed and reduced to its minimum. When they are devoid of secular power, it will make our spiritual leaders more holy. In particular, I think that lay people should be the ones in charge and solely responsible for Catholic action in the world (schools, hospitals, newspapers, universities, charitable organizations, etc.) The clergy should have no more rights than any other baptized Catholic in running those various organizations. This would strip bishops of much of their power, and their influence would then come solely from their charism in inspiring people by their preaching and by their personal holiness. To be effective leaders, they would have to become more like Christ.
That’s my model for the church to tomorrow.
Flannery O’Connor wrote a letter to Cecil Dawkins addressing Cecil Dawkins dissatisfaction with the Church. It was published in “The Habit of Being”. It is an excellent letter and I have turned to it many, many times myself.
I don’t have it in front of me at the moment but I recall her discussing scandal in the classic sense described by Grant.
Flannery wrote that” we have our own responsibility for not being “little ones” for too long – for not being scandalized. For in being scandalized, we scandalize others and the guilt for that belongs to us.”
Grant’s post is a good one and a worthwhile reflection for the upcoming Lent as we work our way through all this slough which can be pretty demoralizing at times. All of us, including bishops, priests, and the Pope, require on-going metanoia and transformation.
My prayer for Lent is from Micah, namely that I be better able to “act justly, love tenderly and walk humbly with my God”. The act justly part includes arriving at a maturity level where we take responsibility for not being little ones for too long in the way Flannery describes.
…and yes…acting justly in the manner articulated Jonathan and Claire is part of it.
Claire, I find your model for the church compelling.
But here’s my response as a Catholic who happens to be gay, when I read the following statement: “I don’t think it is helpful to put the recognition of committed same-sex couples or of divorced and remarried Catholics in the same document, and it much lessens its potential impact.”
My response: that statement militates against your statement that lay Catholics, “any baptized Catholic,” should be running the church’s Catholic-action organizations. Your preceding statement militates against your “any baptized Catholic” criterion for involvement in the church’s ministries because it implicitly takes those who are gay and lesbian and in committed relationships, and those who are divorced and remarried, out of the equation, “any baptized Catholic.”
Very interesting post – thanks, Grant.
I’m not sure I agree that Archbishop Dolan was using “scandal” in the theological sense. It’s not as if publicizing the sexual abuse of children is likely to encourage the faithful to rush out and commit the same sins.
I think it more likely that Dolan, like other American bishops, was searching for a way – any way – to motivate the Vatican to move more expeditiously to laicize abusers. If appeals to the suffering of victims or the requirements of justice weren’t accomplishing the goal, maybe fear of “scandal” in the common usage – embarrassing headlines splashed across the front pages of major newspapers – would spur the Holy See to action.
Btw, I don’t see that strategy as evidence of a vast conspiracy between American bishops and the Holy See. I see it as just that – a strategy – an instrumental (and morally acceptable) means of bringing about a good end.
“We have learnt that church administrators and governors do not know how to handle cases of sexual abuse. They are not competent: for that question, civil justice is the correct venue. In the US the solution is simple: take it out of the hand of dioceses, get rid of their boards for evaluating this or that report of sexual misconduct, and go directly to civil justice. Simple.”
Hi, Claire, it’s not an either-or question, it’s another instance of both-and. The sexual abuse of minors is both a civil AND a canonical offense, and BOTH systems systems of justice (which are complementary, not competitive) need to be able to do their work.
As I read your comment, Claire, I can’t help thinking of the Catholic Religious Women in the US who were singled out for a canonical visitation by the Vatican. I believe that these valiant women, who have had recognized power in the structure of the Church, have influenced the life of the Church in America more than cadres of clergy, especially heirarchy. They’ve taught us in parochial schools, cared for our sick and aging in hospitals and homes, are working among the poor and the marginalized in our society, as we speak, in the name of Jesus! The witness of their holy lives and unselfish love and service have touched more people than they will ever know. That’s real power! Those of us in our 60s remember a time when the Church was prospering and true to it’s mission, and although we are not calling for the Church to go backward, when we ask ourselves why things are so different today and why the Church is losing its faithful … we realize why and say to each other, “There are so few Sisters.” Instead of investigating them, we should be thanking them for nurturing the faith in us.
William, the petition is addressed to the church hierarchy. We know that they are totally stuck on the question of homosexuality. As soon as I read the line “people who responsibly live out love, faithfulness, and mutual care in same-sex partnerships”, I knew that the petition was doomed. Not because the description is necessarily inaccurate, but because the value of same-sex partnerships is not open for discussion. Dialogue with the Vatican on that subject is currently impossible, at least, that’s my impression.
So, from a purely pragmatic perspective, I would think it more promising to stick to topics where conversation might be possible. How can we hope to dialogue on necessary reforms if we start with the question on which the Vatican, with its “intrinsic disorder” mantra, is showing the most stubbornness and blindness? I’d rather stick to topics on which perspectives are not so radically opposite. — for example, one can argue in favour of involvement of gays in church ministries (say, because they are baptized Catholics), but without saying that some same-sex relationships have value.
What is this thread about?
Concerning Abp. Dolan and scandal, isn’t he the one quoted by John Allen as saying as head of USCCB that “The Church has done too much already” in dealing with sex abuse by clergy.
Maybe he can do a “visitation” in Philadelphia.
(footnote to Ann:”muscular catholicsim” is a meme of Abp. Dolan on what he would bring to new York.
I think it’s the same as “Catholic identity” or “Distinctive Catholicism.”)
(Footnote 2 on Abp. Dolan _ I see it’s reported the Guv of NY wil meet with the Abp after all.
Some big hoopla about Cuomo receiving communion from Bishop Hubbard up in Albany – has the catholic right upset. Will we hear more from the estimable Donahue on all this?)
As to reform in the chjurch, there’s broad feeling that the current hieracchy won’t do much to reform, but I thought that was on another thread(s).
Could someone please parse the logic of this for me:
“As Mark correctly notes, the Catholic notion of scandal is a medieval teaching, not a matter of revelation. (Although you’ll find the term in 1 Corinthians and the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John.)”
I guess we’re all wincing here. I winced when I read the first sentence. Donohue is not the President of the Justice League. He’s the President of the infamous Catholic League.
Question: Is commenting available only to those who pay for a print or on-line subscription?
Re Justice League or Catholic League: I think a few folks gave up their sense of humor for Lent.
I’m picturing Batman, Robin, Aquaman, Wonder Woman and Bill Donohue meeting in a secret cave or an isolated manor filled with high-tech gizmos …
You mean Donahue doesn’t wear a latex body suit and patrol the streets at night?!
Kathy has a point. The noun “skandalon, scandal” and the verb “skandalizo, scandalize” occur frequently in the NT with various shades of meaning. Can there be a “theological” sense that is independent of NT usage?
When people post about the prospects for Church reform and call for action, they ought to know and evaluate that Catholic League Donahue gets $300,000 +expenses a year as defender of the Faith [from whom?] and VOTF has trouble paying utility bills. Cults with money last long time .. say hello to Kadaffy and Maborak..
I think Grant explains that the notion of “scandal” as cited in the NT is one thing and the teaching as elaborated in the catechism are related but distinct. Compare what the NT says and what this say, e.g.:
The real issue here, I believe, is how this teaching was applied. I believe that without the formal teaching the scandal of the cover up of abuse would have taken place; the teaching can be cited on both sides, as Dolan did, to pursue justice, or, as others have, to stay shtum.
Human Life International cited the catechism on scandal in their explanation for why they did not reveal that their former president, the Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, had been involved in sexually exploitive situations with those he was ministering to.
http://www.hli.org/index.php/news/press-releases/947-press-release-2211-hli-releases-additional-information-on-the-resignation-of-rev-euteneuer
What is Kathy’s point? Where is the logical flaw? I meant only what I wrote: the term appears in the NT.
“Catholic League Donahue gets $300,000 +expenses a year”
Perhaps Wild Bill should try to enhance his relatively measly income by applying to be head of the Catholic Health Association:
“Sister Carol Keeton is a former longtime health executive herself, and her compensation at Catholic Health Association is $856,093. This in an organization whose expenses are only $17,660,797. Three other employees at CHA each make more than $300,000.“
Good heavens! Who knew?
Dolan’s real was concern was that Catholics might face spiritual ruin if they learned about Becker’s record through a public trial and civil lawsuits, and that is why he wanted him out of the priesthood?
And so, bishops in general, with the same heartfelt concern for avoiding our spiritual ruin, acted for decades to protect our faith by keeping abusive priests’ crimes out of criminal court and exempt from civil lawsuits? They had our best interests at heart.
I don’t think so. Parsing theological and canonical language is a cottage industry all its own, engaged regularly to obfuscate more than clarify, IMHO.
Spare me the tender mercies of bishops/cardinals/popes in these matters: financial settlements, media exposure of their criminal endangerment of minors, and possible indictment are what that made them sit up straight. And not even that in Philadelphia, and who knows where else? So much for USCCB audits!
Or have I misjudged Rigali and Lynn’s true motivation to avoid “scandal” (in the medieval sense) as the care of souls?
Another point: in all the bishops’ depositions I’ve read where “scandal” was mentioned, not one bishop or priest sought to enlighten opposing counsel on the medieval meaning of the term as concern for spiritual ruin. Granted, I have not read them all.
P Flanagan. I was wrong; Donohue makes $400,000+expenses according to wikipedia.
[what are expenses? Limos to cable TV shows]
Perhaps Wild Bill should try to enhance his relatively measly income by applying to be head of the Catholic Health Association:
P Flanagan,
Sister Carol Keehan’s salary is paid to her religious order, the Daughters of Charity, and not to her, personally. You can see it on the CHA’s tax return.
In analyzing “the” scandal we should bear in mind that a every case of abuse involves *four* people or sets of people –
1) the victim of sin
2) the perpetrator of the sin
3) someone “scandalized”, i.e., someone tempted to sin because of sin of the perp. (Let’s call those scandalized the “scandalizees”)
4) a person with the power to hush up the actions of the perp for the sake of either the victim or potential scandalizee or both. (Note: “hush up” is more neutral term morally than “cover-up”. The latter itself implies fault, while “hush’ up does not necessarily.)
We should also bear in mind that in the priest sex scandal, in most cases there have been *two* different scandals (sinful actions that *might* lead others to sin) involved in most of the cases::
1) the *abuse* of the children
2) the *cover-ups* of the abuses
In the cover-ups, it is the bishops who are the perps, and they are perpetrators of two different scandalous sins:
1) hiding truths that justice requires to be told
2) placing the predators in positions (sometimes repeatedly) where children would *probably* be seriously injured at least psychologically.
In all of this I”ve made no mention of the children’s being scandalized in the ordinary sense of the word. I mean they have been *forced* to think evil of men they formerly respected highly, with resulting psychic pain that seems in most cases to be intolerable. This scandalizing of children is, I think, what Jesus had in mind when He spoke of millstones and drowning the perps.
Yes, that meaning of “scandal” bears some relation to the CCC meaning. Because the children were betrayed, they have been made aware of what they should not even have heard of, much less experienced — the crimes of the priests. But that those revelations made them in some cases lose their faith or even commit suicide should not be viewed as sins on their part. They were led, they were betrayed and no doubt our loving God will not judge them as sinners but as persons often brutally sinned against.
So it seems to me that the definition in the Catechism does not reflect the meaning in the NT. It is a definition that automatically requires silence when justice requires speaking out. The states of soul of the children must take precedence over the states of soul of the old ladies in the pews with shaky faith who *might* be “scandalized”. We old ladies aren’t the injured ones. The children are, and they must come first. Justice for them must take precedence over a spurious “prudence” that scuttles justice before it has even begun to act.
Sorry to go on at such length, but these cases are morally extremely complex.
Grant,
I think you have to make up your mind: is scandal part of the revelation or not? What you say is it’s in the Gospels, but at the same time a medieval invention. That makes no sense at all.
Could somebody give a very simple example of scandal in its technical sense? I am confused.
Sorry you’re confused, Kathy. I wrote that the term appears in the New Testament–and, as Joseph Gannon points out, in several senses (“stumbling block,” for example). The idea was developed by Aquinas in the way that I describe above. In the Summa, I believe.
David, the example I provided above is textbook: a Catholic learns his bishop has assigned a priest to his local parish even though the bishop knows the guy has abused kids. The bishop informs no one at the parish. The priest abuses more children. The Catholic loses his faith. The bishop has scandalized him. During the next political cycle, we’ll doubtless be treated to several conservatives complaining that insufficiently prolife Catholic politicians are receiving Communion, giving scandal to the faithful by setting a confusing example.
Richard Smith,
You’ll have to forgive me for not taking lessons in civil discourse from someone who once wrote this on our blog:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1737&cpage=1#comment-19927
And, hey: take a joke.
I’m sorry you’re confused, Grant. Thomas’ source for his argument was Scripture, and quite directly in this case. The Gospel references are especially clear-cut in this matter.
http://girardianlectionary.net/res/skandalon_nt.htm
Claire — and others who despair of bishops changing –
I think there is some hope that bishops can change. Last week Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orelans said in an interview with the Times-Picayune here that he thought that priests who break the law ought to go to jail, that no one is above the law.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1298791206219030.xml&coll=1
He didn’t say in so many words that Msgr, Lyons and C, Rigali ought to go to jail, but the thought was obvious. What is important about Apb. Aymond is that he has been a candidate for president of the NCCB more than once, which indicates that a sizeable number of other bishops respect his judgement. Let’s hope that they too will have the intestinal fortitude to speak out publicly. Maybe Rome will start to listen.
Kathy,
Thanks for your sympathy. It’s entirely misplaced. What do you think I’ve got wrong? Did I say Thomas didn’t rely on Scripture for the term? I said he developed it. There’s nothing in the Gospels that approaches the work Thomas did on the notion of scandal.
Something mentioned multiple times in the New Testament is, in fact, a matter of revelation. Obviously.
But frankly I think that’s a much less significant matter than your willingness to “smear”–your word, in a not-entirely-unrelated context, last November–bishops.
Kathy, why not answer Grant’s question and address the issue at hand rather than trying to be so poisonous? I think it’s incumbent on lay Catholics — and blog commenters — as well not to give scandal.
“I think it’s incumbent on lay Catholics — and blog commenters — as well not to give scandal.”
Oh yes, David, I agree entirely. Which is rather my point.
Maybe some of those other bishops are getting a bit of courage. Rocco Palmo didn’t identify the bishop quoted below (except to say he’s a B16 appointee), but it could reflect the beginning of a change in some bishops’ assumption:
“I am amazed at what is happening in Philly. For the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to have this many priests who have had an allegation against them still in active ministry years later leads me to believe that someone made the decision somewhere along the road to allow this.
Instead of being overly cautious to protect children from any possible further harm and the church from further scandal, they let these guys back into ministry. Now the scandal is amplified ten-fold because it looks like it is the same old church and the same old leadership doing what it has always done in the past.
What were they thinking? In this day and age, this stuff never stays hidden. And it shouldn’t. This is a tragedy for the people, priests, and the church of Philadelphia, all because someone did not exercise due diligence and good judgment.
Sometimes I think that, when we talk about the “new evangelization,” we need to start with evangelizing those of us in leadership first.”
“You’ll have to forgive me for not taking lessons in civil discourse from someone who once wrote this on our blog:”
Yow! Holding paper from a blog comment made THREE YEARS AGO!? And he attacks others for not taking a joke or taking themselves too seriously…sounds like the
hall monitormoderator has a file (digital, no doubt) of all the past transgressions against him, apparently still unforgiven.For those who don’t Whisper each day, there is an interesting comment from a B16-appointed bishop in this posting: “Now The Scandal Is Amplified Ten-Fold” (http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/)
“What were they thinking? In this day and age, this stuff never stays hidden. And it shouldn’t. This is a tragedy for the people, priests, and the church of Philadelphia, all because someone did not exercise due diligence and good judgment.
Sometimes I think that, when we talk about the “new evangelization,” we need to start with evangelizing those of us in leadership first.”
Oops, sorry – I hadn’t read Ann’s posting before I duplicated it with mine.
The eye SHOULD
Having a bad day, Jim? Yep.
“The eye SHOULD be faster than the finger.”
Ditto
Kathy,
The point of this post is not to figure out whether each word of the New Testament is a matter of divine revelation. I’m not familiar with the “if it shows up several times in the text it must be divine” rule. Raymond Brown’s? Perhaps you believe that every bit of Catholic doctrine that claims Scriptural inspiration counts as divinely revealed. We’ll have to agree to disagree about that. As we will have to agree to disagree about whether my disagreement with you amounts to giving scandal. You’ve got nerve.
But now I see that you have yet another bone to pick with me about something I wrote in November. Perhaps my commentary on the campaign against Bishop Kicanas? I believe those threads are still open. Feel free to lodge your complaints there.
Grant,
The intervening years have only validated my 2008 comment (and, btw, I was very happy to read JAK’s typically fine post this morning on the heel’s of yesterday’s crap.)
A 1912 Casuistry book discusses a concrete case of scandal. I remember these kinds of considerations in religion classes and the heated debates that some teachers encouraged. I doubt if they are often taught today – but not because we are so advanced.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rCdZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=casuistry+scandal&source=bl&ots=I7YfN8gkpA&sig=Wn7l3o35Ns5vSxmMyW2KAet8WNM&hl=en&ei=CuZ3Tc6iE4TC0QGgm4nCCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
I’m bothered by the conflation of “doing evil” and “the appearance of doing evil” in this discussion of causes of scandal. The same kind of merger of these two distinct phenomena often appears on editorial pages and is the basis of many silly charges of corruption and questionable campaign finance reforms.
And yet you keep coming back, Richard. To insult, apparently. Well, at least we agree on the typical quality of Joe’s post. So many great people have come out of Dunwoodie–wouldn’t you say?
Grant,
I’m glad we can agree on the quality of Joe’s post — since you can’t learn anything from me about civility, perhaps you can take some lessons from him?
Oh, Grant, really. The thread is about scandal, about which you are simply mistaken on many counts, beginning with its origins. Otherwise, it’s just the same old biased reading of history.
As I said, Kathy, I reject your reading of the nature of the teaching on scandal. We can tit-for-tat for the remainder of this thread, if you’d like. You keep piling on the accusations. First I’ve given scandal. Then I smeared bishops. Now I’m guilty of advancing a biased reading of history. Do you have any evidence for these accusations or are you content to let them stand, stinking up the thread? Maybe that was your intent all along.
Richard Smith and Kathy, you are both shameful, really. I don’t know why you insist on commenting here. It seems compulsive.
Richard, I’ve always profited from reading Joe’s work. One of the reasons we asked him to blog for us. Wish I could say the same about your interventions here.
Patrick, thanks for that link to the 1912 casuistry book. Although I confess my mind started to wander after about three pages of analysis of the woman of considerable physical charms who doesn’t dress as modestly as she might.
Jim P. — Perhaps the casuist was trying to attract readers and in the process was himself the cause of indirect scandal.
The example may seem quaint and will probably enrage some feminists — though maybe not. There are all kinds of feminists. And in some respects the casuist is open-minded.
Should St. Augustine have been allowed to become a Bishop? Under our current regime such an appointment might be deemed excessively scandalous.
Ann: we’ll see.
Claire, thank you for your response to my comment. I take your point, and agree it’s a good one: from a purely pragmatic standpoint, perhaps including those two issues (more precisely: two groups of the faithful) in the petition for reform isn’t the most promising step.
On the other hand–and this strikes me as more important than pragmatic considerations about how the document is going to be received–the petition explicitly states that it’s responding to a situation of pastoral challenge within the German Catholic church that’s so dire there may be no turning back from ruin, if this situation is not faced squarely now.
If that analysis is correct, then it seems to me every card needs to be on the table. And every possible voice represented at the table.
I hear the German theologians saying that they want more than academic dialogue. I hear them saying that they are addressing a pastoral challenge as teachers within the church who bear a serious pastoral responsibility.
And, as a result, I can’t imagine how pastorally responsible theologians would ever address a situation in which a national church seems to be tottering on the verge of ruin without seeking to include groups of the faithful who persistently report that they are made unwelcome and excluded from the community.
Pragmatic this may not be. Pastoral? I think it is. And I can’t see any other possible course for anyone who has pastoral concern for the state of the church in many parts of the world today.
There is something wrong with the principle that one should conceal the crimes of clerics lest others should lose their faith upon hearing of them. To say nothing of justice, the adoption of such a principle would itself cause scandal.
William: maybe. Indeed, I probably wouldn’t be so quick to discard that request if it concerned me directly.
Joseph Gannon: amen!
One cannot overestimate the importance of this thread. Why some insist on sabotoging the thread makes one wonder whether they are hired hands of the bishops. The hierarchy has used the ruse of scandal for centuries to cover up their malfeasance. It is a sin of the bishops that crys out to heaven. A cursory reading of the court files clearly shows that the bishops are more concerned about protecting bishops and clergy not worrying about scandal. This notion of scandal has been used to shield lies for centuries. When Dolan lamented the Pew report which showed that the people care about Jesus and God but not the bishops, he should have said that it is time for the bishops to repent and serve not dominate. The people do not like the bishops because they are narcissists and dominators. Not because they are in an authority position. We can semanticize all we want about what scandal means. What is clear is that the reputation of clergy is preferred over the care of victims. Empire is to be preserved over the gospel and domination takes precedence over service. The bishops feigned repentance in 2002. The subsequent history shows their hypocrisy. Not that they have not instituted some important procedures in reform. The point is when the evidence shows clerical abuse they revert to the cover-up.
I hope no one here would suggest otherwise than the abuse of minors must be prevented and dealt with responsibly.
(Which is what Archbishop Dolan is being attacked for, by the way. Nice one, Grant.)
Meanwhile, scandal is a serious issue. There is a maxim in moral theology: the abuse does not preclude the use. Just because “scandal” CAN be invoked to whitewash wrongdoing doesn’t mean it’s a vacant category. If Jesus and Paul were concerned about scandal, it’s important for bishops, as well as Thomas Aquinas, to be concerned about it to.
People have to believe the Church. They have to believe priests’ words: “This is my body,” “And I absolve you.” When all priests are considered in-credible by association, faith and the sacramental life can fade away.
Kathy, do you not understand that this post is supportive of Archbishop Dolan?
It seems to me that when Jesus and Paul spoke about scandal, they often used the word in reference to themselves, the cross, or the gospel.
Mollie,
I do not understand that. Perhaps it could be made clearer.
Abe,
Sometimes, but not always. Jesus spoke about others who would “cause scandal.” Better that they had never been born! St. Paul spoke about giving scandal to others by eating meat sacrificed to idols. There’s nothing wrong with the meat, but if someone else’s faith is weak enough to be scandalized by my eating it, I shouldn’t eat it.
My point is that you can’t form two columns, one with all the NT instances of words based on the “skanda: root and the other with a relatively modern doctrinal definition of scandal, and see the latter as emerging in some fell swoop from the former. I have a decent grasp of the diverse uses of skanda words in the NT, and I think I have a basic understanding of how the word is being used in the Church today; what I don’t see is how the NT talk of scandal precludes critique of the contemporary use of scandal by Church authorities in their decision-making processes concerning this abuse crisis.
The entire argument concerning the NT origins of today’s understanding of scandal seemed to be a bit of a red herring to me.
Granted, I lack the ethical standing to discuss the matter.
If a priest commits rape and the victim denounces him to church and civil authorities, and if appropriate action is taken by these authorities, then one would be quite unjustified in judging that this priest was in anyway typical or grounds for an unfavorable generalization about priests or about the church.
If a number of priests commit rape and the church authorities think only of suppressing this information and keeping the victims quiet, then those authorities not only do an injustice to the victims but also undermine their own moral authority and may well scandalize some so as to cause them to lose faith.
Claire, thanks. Yes, that’s an important point, indeed.
Makes a huge difference whether you are the one who used to occupy that empty chair at the table, or whether it’s some other now-invisible person’s chair.
One reason I push, prod, cajole, hector about this issue is that it all too often seems to me that many Catholics of the center don’t seem to reflect very intently on the experience of those now excluded from the table. Or, really, what the lack of understanding and solidarity implies for anything we say about catholicity.
I appreciate you both for understanding and for saying so.
What is this thread about??????
I think Abe is on point that applying any NT use of scandal to cover up abuse is inexplicable at best.
I think Joe G.’s point is crystal clear that I hope noone is disputing it.
Is this about “attacks on bishops?’
If the handling of sex abuse by the American hierachy both individually and the USCCB and its realtionship with the Review Board is an issue, the hierachical record is rather poor and if that’s an attack -so be it.
Is this about Abp. Dolan? It should be to some degree.
Is his action in this matter a signal of accountability and openness to look forward to? Or , if as Allen cited, he says the “Church has done too much about this” indicative of another perspective -a perspective in his role as head of the uSCCB and its relating to the Review Board ( he has appointed a new chairman, whose quals therefor IMO are limited) may be important to moving forward?
As to William Donahue, who Dolan apprarently supports in more ways than one, if you read the Abp.’s blog, I think his continued bluster will only make him more of an irrelevancy in the eyes of many and the Abp.’s realtionship with him will not be a helpful factor for the church in New york.
So folks can keep arguing or attacking here about”skanda” but Bill M. is right – the post is important about not only the hierachy and its approach, but also about blogdom and how it is used to promote views.
“. . . the hierachical record is rather poor and if that’s an attack -so be it. . . ”
No, Bob N., their response has generally not been “rather poor”. Their response — and non-response — has been horrendous.
You do them no favor by minimizing their faults. Still less do you show love for the children and their families.
Kathy: I wrote that Donohue was right about something important. That something was Jeff Anderson’s distortion of Archbishop Dolan’s 2003 letter to then-Cardinal Ratzinger urging his office to speedily laicize a serial pedophile. I linked to Mark Silk’s post that said Donohue was right. After failing to read carefully, you accused me of giving scandal, smearing bishops, and distorting history.
After I requested proof of those charges, you were nonresponsive. If you’d been upfront about your concerns at the outset, instead of dropping one of your gnomic comments that inevitably leads to an argument, perhaps you could have avoided misunderstanding . If you can’t or won’t find a way to correct that habit, I’d rather you stay out of my threads.
Ann, of course you’re right – intrying to be civil, I minimized.
Grant,
In paragraph 1 you say it’s a distortion. In the rest of the essay you say the opposite. You’re a writer and an editor, Grant. Why are you being disingenuous about the rhetorical structure of this essay? And why won’t you take seriously your 1200 year lacuna regardiing the source of the Catholic doctrine on scandal? Why won’t you back up what you write, and quit the bullying, and use the same civility standards for your wingman as you do for those you hold in contempt?
Kathy,
No, I do not say the opposite. Rather, I agree with Donohue’s criticism of Anderson. I would not write the opposite because I don’t believe the opposite.
I did take seriously your criticism of my distinction between Thomas’s teaching on scandal and the word as it appears in Scripture. As I said, I’m not persuaded by your critique.
Anyone with eyes to see can conclude that you badly misread this blog post (it’s not an essay). And now we know just how comfortable you are making serious allegations founded on misconstrual.
I haven’t bullied you, Kathy. I have called you to account for your charges. Apparently you can’t support them. Which makes sense, because they’re baseless.
Grant,
Allow me to quote the reversal:
“There can be no doubt that Catholic leaders (bishops mainly, but others too) used the notion of scandal to justify keeping damning facts from the faithful. And the police. Philadelphia Catholics have been treated to two scathing grand-jury investigations of their archdiocese. Last month’s report lambastes church officials for hiding a priest’s abusive history from his parishioners. I haven’t found anything in the grand-jury report indicating that church officials were leaning on the notion of scandal–in the theological sense–to justify their sins of omission. (Although it’s certainly possible.) Mark seems to think offending officials’ interpretation of scandal is inherent to the teaching itself. In other words, Mark apparently believes the teaching on scandal necessarily entails secrecy.
Does it? At least, does it any more than the church’s teaching on sin?”
Kathy,
That paragraph is not about Archbishop Dolan. The only archdiocese mentioned in that graf is Philadelphia. It’s a lead-in to my criticism of Mark Silk’s belief that the church’s teaching on scandal needs to go because it necessarily entails secrecy. I don’t agree with him about that. That was the point of this post, mainly lost now. Thanks in part to your baseless charges.
Grant,
I wish you would cool it with the hyperbole. I’m not a grand jury or a cop; I don’t issue “charges.”
Do you mean that you disagree that scandal necessarily involves secrecy? Or disagree that it should go because it involves secrecy?
Kathy, you made a mistake. Perhaps you read too quickly, or not at all. Perhaps your presumption that you wouldn’t agree with what was being said in the post made it impossible for you to accurately perceive what was being said. But you were wrong, completely, and it seems to me — if your objections were sincere — you should be glad you were wrong. So why not just say “I’m sorry, I misunderstood”? And why does this happen so often with you?
Wingman #2.
I could amplify the post by making my point clearer, but I won’t. Grant, if you really want to know how I’m reading this, and/ or clear it up for me, send me a note. Or make your case here, whatever. I’m done with this thread.
Kathy, you made serious accusations about me. You claimed I had given scandal, smeared bishops, and distorted history. So I asked why you made those claims. No response. Now we know you mistakenly presumed that I agreed with Jeff Anderson’s distortion of Archbishop Dolan’s 2003 letter to Ratzinger. I suppose that explains why you claimed I smeared a bishop (but not “bishops”). Although you haven’t actually said that. No, you’ve had ample opportunity to explain yourself, to amplify your point, but you haven’t. I suspect that’s because you don’t have one.
Because you totally misread my post and refuse to admit your error.