Anne Burke: “Are [the Bishops] Ever to be Trusted?”
Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune featured an op-ed by Anne Burke, former interim chair of the National Review Board.
Money quote:
It appears that even after years of investigation of child abuse by priests, the cover-up of that abuse has been further institutionalized. Some of the alleged crimes in Philadelphia transpired while the National Review Board of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, on which I served, was trying to get to the truth of the scandal.
She concludes that, in light of the events in Philadelphia, it’s now clear that despite assurances to the contrary, “little has changed” with regard to real reform after the scandal.
Burke led the board after the resignation of its first chairman, former OK Gov. Frank Keating, who compared the behavior of some (not all) of the bishops to that of the Mafia. Back in ’03, he said; “To resist grand jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church.”
HT: Bob Nunz
In general: no.
In particular: TBD.
Chicago Tribune title: “Abuse and the Catholic Church”.
Subtitle: Can the bishops ever be trusted?”
America Magazine In All Things blog post title: “Can we trust the bishops?”
Commonweal blog post title: “Anne Burke: “Are [the bishops] ever to be trusted?” ”
Commonweal does it best: it quotes her most precisely.
I have gotten to the point that I think that repeating and repeating the same things over and over about “the bishops” is a waste of time. By now they know what we think. We should be thinking of what we == laity and lower clergy — should be doing to make the criminals among the hierarchy repent and resign or what we might be done to get the Vatican/Pope to throw them out.
Hand-wringing helps no one.
Ann,
You are quite right. Yet when we had a demonstration on Good Friday in 2010 at St. Patricks we got zero bloggers to show up. Most of us criticize VOTF but few imitate their courage. A blog, probably more than 5, should center on why the laity will not grow up.
Ann –
I don’t think “hand wringing” is an accurate way to characterize Ann Burke’s op ed, and I don’t think it amounts to “repeating the same things over and over.” As she said, “All the events of our investigation and audit get colored with new meaning in light of the charges in Philadelphia.”
I also find it worthwhile to hear specifics about what the bishops’ attitudes have been. For example (from the op ed):
Maybe I think this is all old hat because I’ve been hearing this stuff since 1984 when the first big case hit the newswires. I happen to have known the bishop involved when I was a child. Everybody thought he was such an outstanding priest, and I thought he was a nice man. Ha. Later my pastor (when an assistant in another parish) outed Fr. Dino Cinel who used to pick up boys in the French Quarter and bring them to the rectory overnight. My pastor bucked the archbishop to get police action on the case. So I knew that it was possible for priests to show courage. He ended up one of the most respected priests in the diocese, and had the respect of the bishops too.
I have to believe that we aren’t totally helpless. For one thing, I know that not all bishops are rotten men. Could we form alliances with them? But how? What to do?
Sad to say, a good starting point in 2011 is still the USCCB National Review Board’s “A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States” of Feb 27, 2004. The Board under then-interim-chair Justice Anne Burke wrote findings and recommendations which, if implemented by bishops, could have reversed the standing of the institutional Church in the US by now. Instead, it has fallen far below where it stood in that immediate post-Boston period. The Board’s major error, understandable in hindsight, was misplaced hope in the future based on trust in the bishops to carry out their responsibilities – moral, canonical, and legal. The answer to Anne Burke’s question is undeniably “No”.
Seven years of USCCB “audits” mean little according to William Gavin, whose Gavin Group did them (the quotes come from him). Bishops deny access to data essential for an honest independent audit. Some refuse to participate. Most, including Philadelphia, end up “compliant”, the significance of which has become very unclear.
Nine years after Dallas, thousands of volunteers and employees have been indoctrinated in various ways while the scores who have enabled, facilitated, and covered up the child sexual abuse tradition carry on unfettered. In hindsight, that was clearly the aim in the Dallas charter, to keep the spotlight off the bishops as much as possible by shining it very brightly on the abusers.
Philadelphia is a two-fold model. The Cardinal’s Archdiocese, as revealed by 3 Grand Juries, offers a model of the long-running US episcopal tradition of supporting clerical abuse. The civil government through effective DAs is addressing a threat to public safety as it is obliged to do and is in the process of teaching the virtue of justice where needed. That civil model needs to be copied widely until the crime-related behavior by bishops and priests is under control. Expecting bishops to listen and behave responsibly is obviously a waste of time, as experience has shown.
Jack -
You seem to be saying that nothing else can possibly be done to put pressure on the bishops and/or Rome to remove the most egregious creeps like Cardinals Law, Rigali and George. (And, yes, it’s time to call a creep a creep. The children demand it.)
Looking at the Middle East I see that widespread demonstrations seem to have worked when nothing else has, and it seems that at least some dictators (which is what Catholic bishops are essentially) can be shamed into retirement. Shaming is a powerful psychological weapon. Might there be analogous ways of shaming the worst bishops into retirement and stiffening the backbones of the other bishops so that they too would join in a shaming process? I can’t help but think that the reformed bishops — and there are apparently some who have seen the errors of their ways — would like to see the Church rid of the creeps but that they too have no leverage over the awful ones, at least not as things stand..
This is where the expertise of the psychologists is needed, but there seem to be rare in the Catholic Church. At least the kind we need are.
It seems to me that something else is at play here.
I have always been fascinated that over 90% of nominally Catholic parents send their kids to Catholic schools in Ontario where Catholic education is publicly funded. Then 99% of those same parents never set foot inside a Church except to have the child receive First Communion and Confirmation.
Effectively, they say I do not trust nor do I want to associate with the clergy, either the local priest or most importantly the Bishop.
They long ago said “NO” to trust.
Hence most of those few left in the pews are their for their personal spiritual needs and only a few of them really are trusting enough to want to support the bishop or local cleric.
If their cleric or bishop is involved in sexual abuse or its cover-up they would tend to deny or not believe it.
Hence by default we all let the Bishops away with their sins. We will never demonstrate to oust them. We do support the state doing the task.
So I have to agree with Jack the Review Board is still crucial but they must immediately report all cases to the secular authorities after a quick investigation to determine if their is evidence to warrant it OR IF THERE IS EVEN A HINT OF STONEWALLING OR LACK OF COOPERATION.
Even the accused have rights. How do we respect them? Aren’t there some things they should not have to divulge, some questions they should not be asked?
Bishops have responsibility for doctrine and discipline.
On the doctrinal side, in the interview of the Pope by Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict argues that part of the cause of the abuse scandal was problems that occurred in seminaries in the 70′s and 80′s with respect to moral theology. He argues that a theory was developed that pedophilia should be viewed as something positive; that there was no such thing as something that is bad in itself.
I am not sure if this is completely accurate but at least part of it is. I read of a priest who was publicly a member of NMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association). The point is that there is something in the clerical culture (probably influenced by movements like NMBLA and their fellow travelers although it needs to be asked how that crept in the clerical culture in such a pronounced manner. There must have been a critical mass of priests and religious sympathetic enough to that perspective that it was permitted to be publicly taught). At any rate, the environment did not seem to nurture a healthy, mature psychosocial sexuality to say nothing of moral development.
There are many academics on this board and they are certainly in a position to correct these kinds of trends and tones in Catholic institutions.
On the level of priests and laity. I think that they should report immediately to child protective services or the police reasonable suspicions that they may have of abuse. Period. If this is not already a policy, it should become one. Forget the canonical path as a first course, it is ineffective and corrupt. That too needs to be said.
They have the right to remain silent. They have the right to an attorney. They have a right to know that anything they say can and will be held against them in a court of law.
It appears that many have opted for silence. Draw your own conclusion :(.
“Even the accused have rights. How do we respect them? Aren’t there some things they should not have to divulge, some questions they should not be asked”
Mark ==
Of course they have rights, as George D. pointed out. But one’s rights are not diminished by questions being raised. If you’re innocent you can defend yourself. Yes, there are people who would and no doubt sometimes do make false accusations against priests. That happens in the civil area too, but would you do away with the police and the courts because of that very, very small risk?
Your comment is yet another indication that too many lay people think that they are obliged never to even raise questions about the holiness, justice, or wisdom of the clergy. We are NOT called on to be literally sheep.. Do you really think that the Lord who loved children wants the rest of us to stand by helplessly and not work against the corrupt clergy who violate the fundamental rights of thousands and thousands of children?
“Pope Benedict argues that part of the cause of the abuse scandal was problems that occurred in seminaries in the 70’s and 80’s with respect to moral theology. He argues that a theory was developed that pedophilia should be viewed as something positive; that there was no such thing as something that is bad in itself.”
If he believes this, the pope is somewhere near where the USCCB was in the 80′s, or our approach to alcoholism in the 30′s, that it’s a moral failing and not an addiction.
Addiction can strike the most moral of people, and even very moral bishops who have been groomed by predator priests can compartmentalize their lives and make internal justifications.
Sex is a tool of power, and I suspect there has been an addiction to power amongst the Catholic hierarchy for centuries, likely from the very beginning. Jesus warned against it, but we’ve conveniently forgotten his critique about lording it over others.
The 21st century issue is not so much the sexual abuse of children, which we know today happens in families, with close friends, including priests and religious. Or as the Jovial One reminds us, teachers. It is about the systemic cover-up of immoral and illegal activities by a substantial percentage of active bishops.
I wouldn’t call these bishops “creeps,” though perhaps some of them are. Clearly they’ve been duped by very skilled predators who were grooming allies and a support system from the very beginning. If a bishop is looking for a moral priest, then an addict will present himself as such. And a naive prelate won’t know he’s donned a wool cap down to his nostrils.
George, I think you’re right (along with others) to point to problems in formation and clericalism, but as for the specific scenario, it’s not accurate; the Pope was mistaken in his claims in the Seewald interview. There is certainly plenty that folks can find objectionable in 60s/70s counter-culture trends and in philosophical critiques of totalizing theories of knowledge, but the idea that suddenly American and clerical culture was influenced by the idea that pedophilia is ok is a big fat myth. There’s no evidence to justify the contention that there was ever a time when clerical (or American) culture was sympathetic to NAMBLA in particular, to any meaningful extent. If we had polled seminarians throughout that period of time, I doubt that more than an insignificant handful would ever have even HEARD of NAMBLA, much less approved of it, much less belonged. And how insulting to the collective intelligence of the Church–”Jeepers, and all these centuries we thought sex with kids was immoral! Luckily we have secular culture to persuade us it wasn’t so bad after all!” Really? Since when has the Church bothered to pay that much attention to secular trends? The same Church that at the same period of time was manning the battlements against those bad girls taking the Pill was supposedly simultaneously opening the gates to man-boy lurve. No way. It’s my opinion that Benedict’s historical reconstruction is a pernicious myth, a narrative which includes the erroneous conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia–perpetuating the idea that gays are a just a bunch of pervs who think sex with boys is ok. It’s a diversionary tactic to get us to blame the external secular world and scapegoat one group in it (gays) for what is its own internal problem.
Cheers!
The USCCB lists the addresses of the bishops.
http://www.usccb.org/bishops
You can write to your own bishop before the USCCB June meeting when the question of revising the Dallas Charter will be taken up. Or any of the other bishops for that matter. I’m going to write to mine and the New Jersey one in support of their courage.
Thanks for the thread, Lisa.
I think it’s important because we get the repeated apologetic that “we’re doing everything” and have apologized for our past mistakes from Church leaders, but there is no real Episcopal accountability and, as the Judge points out, a frosty reaction to anyone who dares to speak up critically.
If you say “but what can I do?” and want to tuck it away, then nothing wil ever chabge and we deserve exactly what we get
Of course, it strikes me, that desire to have no change isde riguer among the American hierarchy perpetrated on us through Benard Law, placed securely in Rome by now blessed JPII.
“I wouldn’t call these bishops “creeps,” though perhaps some of them are. Clearly they’ve been duped by very skilled predators who were grooming allies and a support system from the very beginning.”
Todd –
This scandal began in 1984. It burst the levees in 2002. It is now 2011. Any bishop who still colludes with a perpetrator to cover up the sexual abuse of a child is himself a creep.
” If we had polled seminarians throughout that period of time, I doubt that more than an insignificant handful would ever have even HEARD of NAMBLA, much less approved of it, much less belonged.”
Mary –
I did teach some seminarians in the 70s and 80s. One of their senior priests complained to me at that time that the order was having trouble with some of the seminarians who were defending homosexual relationhips, and they were being open about it. No, he didn’t say with children, but he didn’t exclude that either.
I think the laity has been very naive about what seminarians and priests are actually interested in. In fact, one of the seminarians I taught, a nice kid, I thought, was indicted later for sexual abuse.
We’ve got to stop being naive.
“I believe that when the truth flourishes . . . we will have no dark places . . .”
Good luck with that, Justice Burke!
“We’ve got to stop being naïve.” Of course. It doesn’t shock or surprise me to accept the idea that seminaries had folks questioning celibacy and defending homosexuality. There’s evidence for that, as there’s evidence those questions were raised in secular culture as well. But that’s a far cry from accepting the Pope’s assertion that the roots of the abuse crisis lie in a 60s-styled defense of pedophilia as normal. There’s just no evidence that this was ever a widespread sentiment. Nor is there evidence that support for NAMBLA ever was more than a fringe extreme of secular culture, much less ever a feature of seminary culture. My point was that defending homosexuality has nothing, zilch, nada, to do with defending pedophilia. They are different in kind, not degree. To me, it’s naïve of the Church’s official apologists (Pope on down) to think the laity is so naïve as to believe the delay, denial and obstruction were rooted in the Church being suckered into accepting pressures from secular forces. Why believe they crumbled under secular pressures regarding pedophilia, when at same time, the Church withstood cultural pressures challenging teachings on contraception, gay marriage, cohabitation, masturbation, and contraception? Perhaps I’m naïve, but that doesn’t pass the smell test as an explanation for why the Church handled sexual abuse the way it did.
Ann,
The scandal began long, long before 1984.
All I’m saying is that I demur on calling someone a “creep.” I’m willing to read your reasoning. I prefer to label the behavior, rather than the person–just my style. But I still get called “clever” by episcopal apologists, so I guess the message is still strong stuff for some.
To be duped by an addict (and I saw the effective and not-so-effective grooming by the alcoholics in my own family) can be a tricky thing. To someone outside the circle of the addict’s relationships, it can seem insane. I think that’s a more accurate term than “creepy,” which I wouldn’t deny fits in some cases.
Is Bishop McCormack a “pedophile pimp,” for example? Does calling him that open his mind? Does it further a fruitful resolution? I tend to doubt it, but I’m not going to call out bishops’ detractors.
It’s just my belief that we need an intervention here. Somebody needs to organize a small group and sit Cardinal Rigali down (and others) and not let him leave till he gets it. What would that take? Bishops who do get it? Your guess is as good as mine.
I find what you say here very convincing, Mary.
I had a variety of experiences at a particular seminary in a major Southern city in the 1970s and 1980s, first as a lay student there, and then as the partner of the first full-time lay faculty member who taught there. Both as a student and then vicariously, through my partner, I saw the seminary go through several waves of panic about what was said to be its growing homosexualization–which struck me as decidedly overdone.
The last and most decisive wave happened to coincide with the years in which my life partner taught in the seminary–and it also happened to be the period in which the abuse situation first began to come onto the radar screen of the public. Perhaps not coincidentally, as the latter happened, there began to be faculty meetings that my partner has described as quite exercised, about how the seminary was becoming a “fruit orchard” (the description of one influential priest teaching at the place), to which priests couldn’t bring their heterosexual friends without fear of offending them. Various suggestions were made about handling this “fruit orchard” allegation, which struck both my partner and me as entirely overdone (and homophobic), since, to our knowledge, any seminarians who happened to be gay were fairly well closeted. The suggestions included one from another priest on the faculty to bring in an acting coach to teach the seminarians to walk like men.
My partner and I were certainly very closeted ourselves at this time, by the way.
Around the time these unhappy conversations were taking place, I became aware of similar conversations at the minor seminary that fed vocations to this seminary–and which was located a monastery near the city in which this seminary was found. Rumors began to circulate about the fact that major changes in the staffing of that seminary and the structure of the monastery had much to do with the need to de-gay the place, as the abuse crisis began to become public knowledge.
What any of this had to do with curbing abuse of minors by priests was then and remains murky to me. To my mind, it had far more to do with the fear of lawsuits and negative publicity, and the desire to find some easy, convenient targets to cope with those fears.
I saw some real injustices done at the seminary in question in this period–notably, by its rector, who was eventually made archbishop of the diocese in which the seminary is located. It’s hard not to imagine that some of the injustices he did to some faculty members and to seminarians targeted as gay had something to do with his eventual elevation to the archbishop’s seat.
I have heard credible stories about similar crackdowns in seminaries and religious communities around the country in the same time frame, leading up to the exclusion of gay candidates from seminaries in the 1990s–with similar injustices done in many of these other seminaries and religious communities, on the basis of sexual orientation.
To my way of thinking, much of this has been window-dressing that does not address the real problems from which the abuse crisis stems–which everything to do with the abuse of power.
Nicholas Cafardi, a veteran of the original NRB, described in “Fraternal Correction” the US bishops’ parallel to Ireland’s “self-perpetuating mediocracy” in which “incompetence breeds incompetence”. The only praiseworthy actor he noted a year ago was the lonely Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin. Martin’s recent speaking in the US was exceptional for the uniqueness of his message among Church leaders and his commitment to the truthfulness that Anne Burke has been urging over years since her NRB experience with US bishops.
http://commonwealmagazine.org/fraternal-correction
An instructive data point on Vatican priorities: A year ago, part of the personal abuse history of Bishop Vangheluwe in Belgium was publicly announced after a coverup attempt by Cardinal Danneels failed. The Pope accepted V.’s resignation from his diocese. End of story. A year later, Vangheluwe gives an astonishing TV interview trivializing his abusing. Belgian bishops, legislators, and ministers join in outrage and demands for Vatican action. The Vatican applies the usual geographic cure, telling still-Bishop Vangheluwe to stay out of Belgium.
The Congregation for Bishops that votes on candidates for the Pope to appoint as new bishops includes papal appointees US Cardinals Law, Rigali, Levada, and Burke. Imagine the conversations when the ability of a candidate to handle ongoing child sexual abuse crises is assessed, knowing what we do of their practices in the US. It would not be surprising for the episcopacy to reproduce itself in its own image.
As for the lower clergy, where are they? In 2002 in Boston, 58 priests found the courage and virtue to write publicly to Law calling for him to go. The letter remains a small but eloquent memorial to clerical goodness when it counted. Out of tens of thousands of US priests today, can you name 58 who are as brave? Handfuls, definitely, but it is hard to identify a group of 58 who have done as much since 2002.
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/121002_letter.htm
On strategy, shaming can be endured until the opposition is exhausted, which is clearly one of the episcopal tactics. The only way it might work would be to broaden and intensify it. Note that an effect of decades of news of priestly sexual abuse of youngsters has been to bury other topics of Church sexual scandal, fleetingly reported.
Examples include: celibate priests’ abandoned mistresses and priests’ children, nuns abused by priests in Africa because they are assumed AIDS-free, the Benedict XVI fallacy (2010) that “homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation”, the John Paul II fallacy (2002) that “there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young”, 40 years of failure in teaching Paul VI’s concept of marriage and contraception to 90+% of a captive audience, surprising interpretations of “celibacy” found among clergy – see The Celibate Myth (2005) http://www.richardsipe.com/Click_and_Learn/index.html , etc.
e-mailing bishops is proper and worthwhile but not, to me, promising. In the Mid-East, it usually takes the army to steer the tide set in motion by the voices in the streets.
“The suggestions included one from another priest on the faculty to bring in an acting coach to teach the seminarians to walk like men.” What a horrible story, William, but I have to confess this quote reminded me of the scene in Bird Cage when Nathan Lane was being degayed–”I just never noticed John Wayne really did walk like that.”
Yes, we were shocked, too, Mary, that in the late 1980s, anyone could seriously propose bringing in an acting coach to teach seminarians to “walk like real men.” And at an academic institution granting advanced degrees. And one that claims to teach people to engage in moral analysis. So much seems wrong with this proposition that it’s hard to know where to begin to point out all that’s wrong with it.
And we found it even more amusing-horrifying, because the priest who made the suggestion was not himself impeccably macho–though he seemed to imagine he was, or why else would he want to teach others how to walk like men?
And how any of that will cure what ails us with the abuse situation is simply beyond me.
“The Congregation for Bishops that votes on candidates for the Pope to appoint as new bishops includes papal appointees US Cardinals Law, Rigali, Levada, and Burke. Imagine the conversations when the ability of a candidate to handle ongoing child sexual abuse crises is assessed, knowing what we do of their practices in the US”
Jack –
Except for the suffering of the children, this to me — I mean the placing of some of the worst enablers in the very highest places in the Vatican — is the worst aspect of the scandal.We all know about the failings of Cardinals Law and Rigali. Here is a bit from bishopsaccountability.com about Cardinal Burke. It covers only three of the worst charges of the 10 against him.
Lest anyone think that the worst of the bishops are not creeps, here is a reminder:
————————–
“For immediate release: Sunday, Aug. 17 [2008]
SNAP posts Archbishop’s “Ten most reckless & callous actions”
Group blasts Burke for “letting accused sex offenders work and live here”
As Archbishop Raymond Burke celebrates his last mass in St. Louis , leaders of a support group for clergy sex abuse victims are releasing a list of his ten “most reckless and callous actions in clergy sex cases here.”
The new list is posted at SNAPmidwest.org and is included below.
SNAP criticizes Burke for paying $500,000 to free a convicted predator priest, for moving a priest who’s been accused of molesting at least three boys, and for bringing a number of proven, admitted and credibly accused priests from elsewhere to live and/or work here.
For more information, contact
David Clohessy of St. Louis , SNAP National Director 314 566 9790 cell
Barbara Dorris of St. Louis , SNAP Outreach Director 314 862 7688 home, 503 0003 cell
—————-Burke’s most reckless and callous actions in clergy sex cases here (posted 8/17/08)
(Each fact cited below, in each case, has appeared in media accounts in at least one credible mainstream news source, and usually, in several such sources.)
1. On Friday, a Wisconsin judge sentenced a serial predator priest to six months in jail. Sometime between 2003 and 2006, Burke let that cleric, Fr. Bruce MacArthur, move to a church center for pedophile priests in Franklin County , even though MacArthur had been accused of molesting at least seven girls and was indicted in the attempted rape of a disabled, mute 54-year-old patient at a nursing home.
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080816/FON0101/80816012/1985
2. Right now, he’s quietly letting an admitted pedophile priest work at/near and live on/near St. Louis University .
He’s Fr. Vincent Bryce, who was suspended from two Michigan parishes in 2002 when he admitted molesting a child. (His direct supervisors have acknowledged the admission in writing). Bryce works at the Aquinas Institute, directly across the street from SLU and lives in Jesuit Hall, at the northwest corner of Grand and Lindell.
In December, a Chicago area newspaper disclosed that Bryce is here, but no St. Louis media have yet mentioned his name.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2002_04_22_GrandRapidPress_PriestResigns_Vincent_Bryce_1.htm
http://www.wednesdayjournalonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=9404&TM=24148.37
3. Right now, he’s quietly letting Fr. Robert Osborne work at a Kirkwood parish. Osborne left Vianney high school after being accused of molesting a boy. He later admitted giving liquor to kids and a second alleged sex abuse victim came forward.
Osborne was sued and his victim received a substantial settlement. Osborne’s direct supervisors, a religious order called the Marianists, refuse to reassign him to any of their dozens of schools they run across the US . But Burke lets him work in a parish here.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/05_06/2007_06_29_Corrigan_MarianistsSettle.htm”
==========================
The awful, awful, awful men are choosing our bishops. Why do we do nothing about it except talk?
“I have to believe that we aren’t totally helpless. For one thing, I know that not all bishops are rotten men.”
Really? name two.
I am serious. We simply don’t call people out personally and the individuals who have performed criminally or incompetently escape under the smokescreen of “the bishops.” It’s time to start naming names. And I suggest that that particular task should begin with the bishops themselves.
I have not heard a single bishop criticize Rigali. In my mind that makes them all accomplices.
Keating could have identified the bishops he thought were acting as mafiosos–but didn’t. Recently, a bishop was called a pedophile pimp, a fairly accurate description. What happened? howls of protests from lay Catholics–not one suggestion that the accuracy of the accusation should be examined.
CNN just had an interview with C Rigali in the middle of St Peters today about JPII’s sainthood. the CNN anchor back in Atlanta looked disgusted.. No shame ? looking for a camara?.. even Trump is looking for a place to hide..
When Msgr. William Lynn the Philly vicar is on the stand soon, and he will be asked ‘did you tell C. Rigali that two priests and a lay teacher were passing around a ten year old for sex’??.. how will he answer/ and not hang himself and Rigali . yes?[what did the cardinal say?] no why not? what will be the next question.? Does Lynn have the cojones to plead guilty and take the fall so as not to have to testify? Doubt it. He is no Scooter Libby with a dangling pardon.
CW Posters have asked what can the laity in the pews do? So far they have successfully ignored the s–t smell. We have had a full court press by defenders of the hierarchy bloggers here and at every Catholic blog, saying ‘it’s teachers’ it’s family’ ‘it’s gays’. The laity in the pews need to have there noses rubbed more deeply into the doggy mess and they may need repeat rubbings.. Boston et al was just a slight odor from a backroom, easy to ignore. Philly and LA courts will be harder to ignore. and if they are ignored … Maybe the laity will have to have a big piece of the mess injected up their noses and taped shut. The messy smell will not go away.never, never …Only A/B Martin seems to grasp that.
“Might there be analogous ways of shaming the worst bishops into retirement and stiffening the backbones of the other bishops so that they too would join in a shaming process?”
I’m curious. What percentage of church-going Catholics in the US does anyone think are exorcised enough by what has happend to actually get up from their barcaloungers, go out to the streets (actually and metaphorically) and actually do something – nay, ANYTHING – that will noticeably express their dissatisfaction? And even if they really do ANYTHING in meaningful numbers in each diocese, what real pressure does this put on any absolute monarch known as a bishop to the point the he will feel any need to do someting to effect change? Remember, we are talking about the garden variety of what I like to call slack-jawed pew potatoes that inhabit the majority of the pews in our parishes.
Mary –
I agree that there is all the difference in the world between normal homosexuality and pedophilia. But I daresay that even some of the seminarians in the 70s and 80s weren’t aware of the differences. Even today, as we know from this blog, there are priests who defend man-boy “love”, as if all instances of pedophilia and ephebophilia involved true love of any sort.
My only concern is the children who have been misused and the bishops who protect their abusers, not the homosexuals who are as outraged as I am by the misbehavior of the abusers.
I’ll say something I’ve been thinking of saying for years now, but never had the courage. I don’t doubt that there are more pedophile/ephebophile bishops than have been outed, and I don’t doubt that at least some of the ones in the closet have been the object of blackmail. That would explain a lot. We have to stop being naive and must consider all of the possible reasons for this plague.
Re Burke’s record in St. Louis, let’s remember to add to the repellant record his placing Sr. Louise Lears under interdict (removing her from her parish ministry and forbidding her the sacraments). The wheels of “justice” move pretty damn fast if you aren’t circling the wagons…
Joe McF. –
Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans criticized the events in Philadelphia in no uncertain terms, as did a bishop in New Jersey whose name and diocese I forget. Neither said the name “Rigali” as I remember, but it was crystal clear that they were condemning the actions or inactions of the powers that be in Philadelphia. Perhaps there were others, but I don’t know of any.
Would it be possible for a joint lay and clerical petition for recall of Law, Rigali, Levada, and Burke from the Congregation for Bishops on the basis of a sense of no-confidence from the clergy and laity of the U.S.? What would the USCCB do? We might find out that there are more than 58 brave clerics around now. And maybe a few Bishops. (Or not.)
Latest news from the Louisville archdiocese whose chief shepherd is Joseph Kurtz, a Pennsylvania native, a contributor to the Maine vote against gay/lesbian marriage, and — per local scuttlebutt — an aspirant to the AB’s seat in Philadelphia when Rigali retires:
“The church didn’t confirm or deny the Weiters’ claim that it tried to keep [Rev.] Schook’s presence at St. Therese a secret.
“But it defended its ‘legitimate interest in maintaining some degree of discretion with regard to unproven accusations of abuse against one of its *employees*,’ it said” (emphasis added in reference to Rev. Schook as an employee).
SOURCE: “Archdiocese of Louisville claims freedom of religion as defense in employee suit”, Courier-Journal, April 13, 2011. Now archived; payment required for access.
I don’t disagree with the despair at the episcopacy but I always wonder why religious order superiors are left out of the conversation. The Jesuits in particular have paid out huge settlements over the years and there have been terrible accusations about some monastic establishments.
Great idea Susan, but a non-starter. No hope! They are a lost cause. And the People of God are not going to march to get rid of them or even sign a petition.
The priests are cowed by years of conditioning to obedience.
Sorry to be so pessimistic, but please tell me how you think the laity could rally around even a recall.
Thanks to JPII’s “orthodox” episcopal appointments, not to mention the centuries-old ecclesial culture and lay apathy/indifference to whatever ails the institution, it’ll be a cold day in hell before we see any culpable hierarch be seriously penalized or penalized at all.
Money talks.
The laity must make its absence talk louder.
“The priests are cowed by years of conditioning to obedience.”
Yes, and also — perhaps — by fear of losing a church pension if they speak out against their boss! AB Kurtz, noted earlier, has threatened revocation of pension of any retired prebyter who speaks out against non-infallible church teaching.
(he’ll make a good ab in phily)
I have a large circle of gay friends who are much more tolerant of a wider variety of behaviors than am I. There is no single “gay lifestyle” when it comes to what is acceptable sexual behavior and what is not. I know of NO ONE – repeat, no one – who is supportive of NAMBLA or pedophilia. I knew one priest a long time ago who was a presider at our local Dignity chapter. Somehow it was discovered that he was a member of NAMBLA and his invitation to preside was withdrawn immediately. He soon felt such a frosty reception by Dignity members that he disappeared. This was back in the 1980s. There is no doubt that some seminarians and even priests are supportive of man-boy love. In many cases their psychosexual development have rendered them “men boys” themselves!
The issue has always been, and will continue to be, an in-depth assessment of the readiness of (1) men – at this stage of things – to become seminarians, and (2) their readiness to be ordained priests. Even then, their lives – as of the rest of us – need to mature with time. Most do; many do not. The ongoing need to have warm, breathing male bodies in the priesthood apparently has resulted in an inability to determine appropriate candidates, even if it means a lessening of ordinations of warm, breathing male bodies. Another problem is the immaturity of bishops when they see so-called “orthodox” candidates saying the right things and supporting the right things (anti-abortion, any-women priests, anti-gay anything, liturgical trads, etc.) in determining whether or not they are any more qualified for ordination than those who do not repeat the currently approved checklist of no-no’s.
” — revocation of pension of any retired prebyter who speaks out against non-infallible church teaching.”
Does anyone know if church pensions are covered by ERISA? If so, how can Kurtz do what he has threatened?
Thank you Ann, Here is a link to both bishops’ comments, I think:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2011/03/boston-reborn-in-philadelphia-inferno.html
In my opinion, at this time of the clergy sex abuse crisis, the Camdem bishop’s comments goes into the “pablum” pile. He boldly opposes cover ups. Is there any bishop “in favor” of a cover up? Of course not, so saying there’s no place in the Church for cover ups is hardly a courageous or even helpful stand.
Bishop Aymond’s comments were a little better but still in the “words, not actions”category. What does either bishop propose to do if the Philadelphia Grand Jury report is accurate? Cover ups have already been have been identified in a number of dioceses–what actions do either bishop propose to address those.
After the last few decades of history, if the best that a bishop can do is take a brave public stand against episcopal obstruction of justice, well, I’m not impressed.
It sounds too much like the alcoholic boldly announcing that drinking is bad for you while on his way to the pub.
“I don’t disagree with the despair at the episcopacy but I always wonder why religious order superiors are left out of the conversation.”
My understanding is that they are under the supervision of the Pope.
Let’s just no go there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcial_Maciel
Re the slack-jawed pew warmers…odds of the average church-goer standing up, protesting–something, anything–in an organized way. I’d put those odds between slim and none. I don’t think the average Catholic knows much of what’s happening, may not see it as relevant to them, and has difficulty imagining “politicizing” the church by doing something like wearing a ribbon to Mass in protest, or submitting an empty envelope. And where are they getting info? Most aren’t on cw or other sites, their diocesan papers sure aren’t covering the scandal. I was struck last month by Reese’s discussion at NCR of Pew survey data regarding reasons Catholics leave the church. The sex abuse scandal isn’t the primary reason they give (it’s about unmet spiritual needs). I do wonder if the longer this drags on we’ll see more instances where the abuse scandal becomes the final straw, as the hierarchy seems to spend more and more time in battle mode and less in improving the quality of religious experience for those who have stuck it out.
Mary, I learned that the new editor of
Oops, an uninvited feline jumped on keyboard :-(
Anyway, I learned that the new editor of THE RECORD, published by the Louisville archdiocese, said he would not publish any reader’s letter critical of church teaching/policy.
Problem is THE RECORD has seldom published a reader’s letter for too long to remember :-)
So much for what has generally been expected of a community newspaper, to wit, allowing vigorous discussion and debate of community issues within its pages.
But, then, maybe THE RECORD is the *archbishop’s* newspaper to be supported by the community denied a voice within its pages!!!
Jimmy Mac, I don’t know the answers to your questions. One can only hope someone might challenge the AB. One thought: If Kurtz knows he’s issued a hollow threat, such behavior would suggest he has an arrogant/contemptible attitude toward his retired “reports”. Phily can have this guy; we didn’t ask for him!
Not even JP the Great could make a silk purse. He was not given much to work with in terms of appointing Bishops, because of the state of the priesthood before he became Pope. Forunately, future popes will benefit from his charism, and have a plethora of good men to choose from.
Mr. Proska, if sociologists of religion James Davidson and Dean Hoge presented an accurate assessment in their “Mind the gap: the return of the lay-clerical divide” published in COMMONWEAL (Nov. 23, 2007), your assertion lacks merit. As a fellow subscriber, you can access this article at COMMONWEAL.
For others, it’s also available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_20_134/ai_n25436496/
You’re entitled to your opinion — but not to your facts.
Jimmy Mac -Re pensions:
The Boston Archdiocese is involved in heated conflict over pension funding for priests, lay employees, and associated organizations. Most of the combatants seem to agree that these are “church plans” and therefore not subject to ERISA. Some potential pension recipients consider that a serious deficiency in terms of their rights and reasonable expectations.
USCCB offers some related general guidance, since “all dioceses are obligated to provide financial support for retired priests in accord with the gospel spirit and the charisms of a given faith community.” How one calculates estimated long-term income from that is not clear.
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/dfi/pension.htm
Mark, Joseph has given a far better rebuttal to your fact lacking opinion that I could. All I can add is that when I read your opinion the image I conjured up was a scene or two from Alice in Wonderland…of course there is the chaos of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party but perhaps more appropriate is the Queen of Hearts’ rantings. Your statement has about it, the same level of credibility.
Mr. Jaglowicz–
The opinion piece you cite contains this unsupported assertion:
“Then, starting in the 1980s, another shift took place. Many priests began to turn away from this servant-leader model toward an updated version of the cultic priesthood.”
We do agree on one thing: you are entitled to your opinion.
Mark P.
Let’s get past the fact-lacking.
The line you quote is extraordinarily well supported. Note who the authors are.
There is no support for the assertion in their article. How do they get away with that? This little sleight of hand: They reference another article you’d have to track down, in a different publication. What’s worse, it’s by one of the very same authors. Nice.
Mary and all –
In my experience many, many people are outraged, especially old ones like me. We never in a hundred years would expect clergymen to misbehave so badly and get away with it. Unlike the boomers, we expected better of them.
I would say that by now, since the bishops have not enacted any programs with teeth, the typical attitude of the old folks is depression, at least the ones I know. But old people like me are no good at organizing protests. The young seem to be the ones who are good at that, and have the energy for it. I’m sure if a real leader emerged he or she would have the support of most of the old folks.
(I hate that term “pew warmer”, by the way. It’s very demeaning. And if you all will notice, the participant on this blog who has been pushing recently for possible protests by the laity and lower clergy is an 80 year old woman — me.
Mark P.
The usual way to get away with that is to be the best in the world at what you do. See this Hoge obituary for some indications. http://ca.renewedpriesthood.org/page.cfm?Web_ID=1135
Hey there, Ann,
Speaking only for myself, I think the group I had in mind at the time was decidedly not the older generation. I’ve perceived it similarly to the way you describe it. Most of the outrage and strongest expressed sense of betrayal I’ve heard has come from the folks 60 and up. Also, the folks I was thinking of who seem to me the least likely to be willing to get off their duffs and do something are not the older folks; rather, I was thinking of the bulk of Catholics I see at church: the age 30-50 “cultural Catholics” who show up and who are relatively active in parish social life, but for whom belonging to the Church is pretty much like being part of the country club, Elks, Junior League, or Disease of the Week Charity. They help out with good works, go to Mass regularly, they drop the envelope in the box, and that’s that. These are the folks who I don’t see getting interested in taking action, even if they had more information or followed the issues as closely as the folks on cw seem to. I do agree with you that we might be surprised at who would be willing to participate, given the right constellation of conditions. (I wonder what would happen if every diocesan newspaper the same week got bombarded, completely overwhelmed, with emails/letters expressing outrage at the Bishops–something that made “the story” the story of piles of letters that went unpublished.)
I dunno what, if anything, could motivate enough of us to do something that enough of them would take it seriously. Grand jury indictments don’t seem to do it, so I’m not sure a walk-out from Sunday mass would. I suspect the answer, as lots of people on here have been saying, has to do with the collection plate. How depressing.
John Paul the Great enabler.
Sorry Mark,it was a mistake to beatify the man. He was a big part of the problem.
Jack–That link did not work for me.
Joe–Perhaps you may be right, though I do not feel that way. If he’s not canonized, that could be a sign you are right. Time will tell. As for now, much of the complaining about the beatification comes across as cranky mean-spiritedness. Much like a conservative moaning that it would have been better if Bin Laden had been killed under Bush’s watch, since it was Bush who initiated the operation to get him.
Mark wrote: “much of the complaining about the beatification comes across as cranky mean-spiritedness”;
Not so! Many here and elsewhere genuinely feel this honor is not deserved for many reasons, most of all JPII’s stubborn refusal to recognize sexual abuse for what it is.
Rose colored glasses do not change the facts, nor should it make opposition to beatification “cranky or mean-spirited”.
John – I watched most of the beatification ceremony over the weekend (on EWTN television), and it was lovely.
I was suprised when they noted there were approximately one-quarter of a million people in attendance – wow!
Mary –
I don’t think we disagree at all, except I think that those younger people who sill regularly go to Mass, etc., have a stronger faith than you suspect.
I wonder if any of the social scientists have studied why people remain in a church. Hmm.
Andrew Greeley did a study years ago — the Mass was number one, and devotion to Mary and the other sacraments were right up there on the list. Makes sense to me. I sure don’t belong to the Church because its leaders.
Ann, you say, “I agree that there is all the difference in the world between normal homosexuality and pedophilia. . . . My only concern is the children who have been misused and the bishops who protect their abusers, not the homosexuals who are as outraged as I am by the misbehavior of the abusers.”
Again, it seems to me these distinctions don’t advance productive conversation about the real causes of the abuse crisis–and aren’t even just. Unless we intend to talk about simultaneously about the distinction between “normal heterosexuality” and pedophilia.
And about those within the Catholic church who also excuse or even defend clerical abuse of adolescent girls, on the ground that 1) at least they’re engaged in normal sex, and 2) as we all know, pubescent girls can be sirens. That rhetoric is also on Catholic blogs, for anyone who cares to hunt for it.
I still ask: did that purge of gays from the seminaries really do anything effective to deal with the abuse crisis? Or did it compound the problems we’re facing, by unfairly targeting many folks who had nothing at all to do with the abuse?
Did it compound our problems by disguising the truth about the abuse crisis and its roots (and I agree with Anne Burke that systemic evasion of the truth is at the very heart of the abuse crisis)? And by building yet another level of injustice into the official response to the abuse crisis? Particularly when the purge of gays was mounted by church officials (including seminary rectors) many of whom are themselves closeted gay men . . . .
I find your distinctions between “normal homosexuality” and pedophilia work only if one grants that there’s a two-tiered system within official Catholic thinking which accords a lesser class of humanity to those who are gay–with a lesser range of rights.
Many thanks to Justice Burke for her strong article, and to the Chicago Tribune for printing it so prominently.
Far be it from me to defend the indefensible, i.e. the bishops’ post-Dallas performance. I do want to mention that an important lesson illustrated by what is happening in Philadelphia is that much of the “real work” of enabling abusive priests happens at bureaucratic levels below the level of bishop.
In theory and fact, those bureaucracies report to the bishops, and so the bishops truly are and should be responsible, but in point of fact, bishops come and go, but the bureaucracies are permanent structures. They were in place before the bishops came; they continue while he is there, and after he leaves, they remain.
Istm that many, probably most, of the failures in US dioceses are failures by bishops to hold their underlings accountable.
There should be a way for a newly appointed bishop to independently assess whether the bureaucracies given the responsibility for managing and minimizing clerical sexual abuse are abiding by their responsibilities – and if they aren’t, then the new bishop should not hesitate to wield a vigorous broom. Roll the heads of the miscreants before they become his guys.
As I keep reading through this, i think Abp. Martin is spot on about bishops not wanting to know or worse, and also, that our seminaries are in deep danger of continuing to produce clergy who are “other than” and infected with the clericalism that promotes the dangers here.
There is stil far too much emphasis on authority as power and not as service.
The JPII guys in Rome and here are right out of that mold and defending them IS defending the indefensible.
Jim P. –
According to the USCCB, “a report is requested [by the papal nuncio] from the current bishop or the administrator of a diocese on the conditions and needs of the diocese” when a replacement is to occur. Two Philadelphia Grand Jury reports had been prepared on the Archdiocese by the time Rigali arrived. Indictments would have occurred but for the state law in effect at the time. Archdiocesan lawyers were available as usual. It is beyond imagining that Rigali worked and socialized, formally and informally, in innocent ignorance, whatever the state of the bureaucracy.
http://www.usccb.org/comm/bishopsfinal.pdf
Mr. Proska, the Wikipedia entry on Dr. Hoge is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Hoge.
His qualifications and reputation speak for themselves.
“It is beyond imagining that Rigali worked and socialized, formally and informally, in innocent ignorance, whatever the state of the bureaucracy.”
Jack – yes, that’s what I said.
Re: “Church plans” and ERISA:
http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=35580
“Again, it seems to me these distinctions don’t advance productive conversation about the real causes of the abuse crisis–and aren’t even just.”
William L. ==
Why is it unjust to distinguished normal homosexuality and pedophilia? It serves the purpose of eliminating normal homosexuality as part of the problem.
Mr. Proska, I have a PhD friend (sociologist) who will be retiring, if I recall, the end of this academic year. I asked him a few years ago if he was familiar with James Davidson of Purdue University. My friend replied that Davidson was a highly respected sociologist of religion (my friend, on other hand, specializes in a different area of the profession). I mention this tidbit only because I could not find Davidson’s c.v. and because I think he merits some additional mention besides his name as co-author of the referenced article.
I suspect people highly respected within their professions are fully aware of the dangers inherent in playing loose with the facts.
Today Bishop Morris from Australia has been fired. The Vatican statement: “The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has relieved His Excellency Msgr. William M. Morris of the pastoral care of the Diocese of Toowoomba.” The bishop said that he had never written a letter of resignation.
This proves that the Catholic church is an organization where the Vatican does indeed have authority over misbehaving bishops. (In the Morris case the decision had to do with Morris’s outspoken views in favor of women’s ordination). Next time there is a lawsuit against a diocesan chancery, and the Vatican claims that it has no authority to do anything about a bishop’s actions if the bishop is not willing to tend his resignation — we will know, by proof of Morris’s example, that it’s not true. Bishops are Vatican employees at least in the sense that they are appointed and fired by the Pope.
In the Republic of the Congo, a bishop was “removed” by the Pope March 31 because of serious management problems and tensions in his diocese. The unusual omission by the Vatican Information Service of the customary reference to Canon Law and the reason for removal (resignation for age or for grave cause) led news reports to speculate that the bishop had refused to resign and was therefore “removed”, a rare step.
http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2011/03/other-pontifical-acts_31.html
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/congo-bishop-reportedly-removed-by-pope-for-serious-mismanagement/
Claire and Jack–thanks for the news/links. How depressing. Wonder if poor Bishop Morris gets to keep a pension…
News24, a South African news site, reported that reasons for the removal, not resignation, of Bishop Loemba in the Republic of the Congo included economic mismanagement and loss of the confidence of his clergy. In what is surely a sign of the times, it added that, “according to the Vatican, …. there was no issue of sexual morals involved.”
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Vatican-sacks-DRC-bishop-20110331
Here’s the link to NCR’s coverage of the Morris story.
http://www.ncronline.org/news/women/pope-removes-bishop-who-expressed-openness-ordaining-women
Ann, you ask, “Why is it unjust to distinguished normal homosexuality and pedophilia?”
That’s not my point at all, though.
My point is that to focus on the distinction between normal homosexuality and pedophilia, while remaining completely silent about the distinction between normal heterosexuality and pedophilia, still implies a causative connection between some kind of homosexuality and the pedophilia of the abuse crisis.
And you reinforce that reading by talking about the rhetoric of some folks on Catholic blogs who appear to find the sexual molestation of pubescent males by priests a minor or understandable thing. As I point out, one can also find rhetoric on Catholic blogs arguing that priests who abuse pubescent females are doing something not so heinous, since they’re at least engaging in normal sexual activity and pubescent girls are often sirens.
I’m suggesting that linking the abuse crisis to either form of sexuality is unproductive.
Its roots don’t lie there. They lie in abuse of the truth, as Anne Burke says. And in our church, there’s systemic distortion of the truth about the real sexual lives of many people, clerics included. Because we don’t tell the truth about sexuality, and because there’s not a forum for honest, open discussion of the real views and real behavior of many Catholics in this area, there’s a rottenness in the heart of the church from which the abuse crisis emanates.
And its roots lie in the abuse of power. I’m arguing that church officials abuse power when they scapegoat gay priests for the abuse crisis. And rhetorical systems which imply that heterosexuality is somehow ontologically superior to homosexuality, and which thereby grant fewer rights to those who are gay, are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Jack re: no issues of sexual morals involved – that may mean that he is not accused of marrying or otherwise violating his vow of celibacy.
The basic disconnect here is that for most of the world credibility and trust are earned commodities. In the bishop’s world they are supposed to be a function of their authority. Most of us moved out of the bishop’s world some time ago, and a few of us even gave up our citizenship in it. But more than a few have not, including the bishops and the Pope and all his legions in Rome. There is no official accountability when you are the ultimate authority. That’s what it means to say the church is not a democracy (in essence). Your only recourse is to leave or possibly just stop the flow of funds.
“Wonder if poor Bishop Morris gets to keep a pension…”
Mary, you apparently don’t understand: *That* would cost the church money! And we certainly don’t want to support a heterodox or heretic bishop, do we?
(I share your frustration with Rome and its lackey bishops.)
“Your only recourse is to leave or possibly just stop the flow of funds.”
Barbara, as perhaps (by now) you and other “regulars” know, I left a few years ago: didn’t want to give my participation or money to Rome and its lackey hierarchs.
I’ll be interested to see what happens the First Sunday of Advent with official implementation of the new liturgical texts.
As I understand it, Bishop Morris stated he would be open to ordaining women and married men to the presbyterate IF the church were to change its rules to permit such ordinations. In other words, he suggested he supports change, but he also made clear his intent to abide by the current rules.
This situation is interesting because it raises profound questions about a bishop’s independence of thought vis-a-vis the third mode of infallible teaching, i.e., the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. As I understand it, a teaching can be considered infallible outside papal “ex cathedra” pronouncement or conciliar decree if all the bishops of the world, while dispersed around the globe but in communion with the pope, present a particular teaching as one to be definitively be held by their local faithful.
If a truly secret vote were conducted among all the world’s bishops by a third party independent of (but contracted by) the Vatican, would all the world’s bishops support JPII’s conclusion that the church lacks authority to ordain women to the presbyterate/episcopate?
Read my lips: I — don’t — think — so!
And, yet, we have a reactionary white European pope who effectively in the Morris case has threatened bishops with removal from office if they voice openness to change — change, as in the case of female ordination, to a doctrine that does not meet the test of infallibility from either a scholarly or canonical perspective.
Sad, indeed.
This is just one more reason I refer to most Catholic hierarchs as nothing more than papal lackeys, papal bootlickers, papal a$$lickers!
“I’m suggesting that linking the abuse crisis to either form of sexuality is unproductive.”
William L. –
As I see it, unless the distinction is made, there will be no clear understanding of the problem of abuse. Too many people classify all homosexuality as sick, and as long as they do they will blame the all the homosexuals for “corrupting” the priesthood. Some do, but some most don’t, no more than most straight priests have affairs with women — unless I’ve been reading the wrong figures.
The hierarchs (both bishops and priests) have betrayed the trust and confidence of all people and compromised their priesthood and high offices with their complicity in the rape and sodomy of thousands of children.
The appropriate response of Catholics is to IGNORE all the hierarchs. Anything less, just encourages them. (Like all the attention given to the “beatification” of JP2: more about hierarchs trying to cover their collective butts than about Wojtila’s sanctity.)
Hierarchs are have long been IRRELEVANT and INCONSEQUENTIAL to the everyday lives of millions of Catholics around the world. The hierarchs neither add nor subtract from our lives. And our ranks are growing daily.
The best response to the hierarchs:
1. DEFUND THE HIERARCHS: You want to change their minds about important issues, take away the unaccountable access to the mountains of money which only fuels their political hegemony over the church (and paid for all their legal bills instead of ministry for people).
2. DISCOURAGE ALL PRIESTLY VOCATIONS until there is a complete and thorough reform and renewal of the priesthood from pope to parish that respects the human dignity of all persons. The hierarchs will only become more reactionary, more desperate as they increasingly age and die-off, losing greater and greater legitimacy for their political hegemony over the church.
The PEOPLE are actually on the winning side of history in this struggle.
Listen to the angel: “Why do you stand here looking up into the sky?” Acts 1:11. The PEOPLE need to take matters into our own hands!
Tom Roberts at NCR reports the Australian Priest Council is backing Morris.
(Makes me wonder what happened to the Boston 52? Also, how much heat is put on priests by their bishop to avoid public criticism. (Only putative “respectful dialogue” please.)
In the article it seems Morris experienced a “visitation” (another ugly Romanita semantic) and a secret report was sent to Rome that he never saw!
The “visitor” = none other than Archbishop Chaput -obviously known for his balance.
Ugh, ugh and more ugh!
(PS I guess the Anchoress wil think this post an occasion of sin: another triple Ugh!