Vatican responds to Cloyne Report
Poster in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Diocese of Cloyne, Cobh, Ireland.
In a detailed response, the Vatican has rejected charges made against it in an Irish government commission’s report on the cover-up of clergy sexual abuse in the Diocese of Cloyne. While “sorry and ashamed” for the victims’ suffering, the Vatican denied the report’s charge that it “gave comfort” to those within the Irish church who opposed the Irish bishops’ 1996 framework for dealing with allegations of clergy sexual abuse.
The focus is on a letter the papal nuncio sent in response to the proposed 1996 guidelines. The nuncio said the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy viewed the guidelines as an unofficial “study document.” It contained
“procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were causes of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities. In particular, the situation of `mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature”. [Cloyne Report, p. 5, pdf via Wikipedia]
The Vatican has now responded that the Irish bishops had never asked formal approval for the document, and that the Holy See did not formally reject it. It added that the Congregation for the Clergy criticized the document in an attempt to strengthen it by making sure cases against accused priests were brought within the strictures of canon law. It continued:
Meeting canonical requirements to ensure the correct administration of justice within the Church in no way precluded cooperation with the civil authorities. The Congregation for the Clergy did express reservations about mandatory reporting, but it did not forbid the Irish Bishops from reporting accusations of child sexual abuse nor did it encourage them to flout Irish law. In this regard, the then Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, in his meeting with the Irish Bishops at Rosses Point, County Sligo (Ireland), on 12 November 1998 unequivocally stated: “I also wish to say with great clarity that the Church, especially through its Pastors (Bishops), should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path of civil justice, when such is initiated by those who have such rights, while at the same time, she should move forward with her own canonical procedures, in truth, justice and charity towards all.”
In any case, it said, the Irish government itself did not support mandatory reporting of sexual abuse allegations at the time.
While the Vatican maintains that it wanted to improve the Irish bishops’ document so that disciplinary cases against accused priests would not be dismissed on technicalities in canon law, its “serious reservations” over over the morality of mandatory reporting seem to suggest opposition to the guidelines rather than an interest in making them airtight. The quote from Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos simply advises bishops not to obstruct justice; it doesn’t say they should report abuse allegations to the police.
While the Vatican has offered an unusually detailed explanation of the meaning of the nuncio’s 1997 letter to the bishops, I’m not sure it deals with the report’s key allegation regarding Rome – that the Vatican letter provided cover to Irish churchmen who didn’t want to follow the bishops’ guidelines. According to the Cloyne Report, this was the case in the Diocese of Cloyne, where Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan oversaw the diocesan response to sex abuse allegations, apparently with little oversight from Bishop John Magee. According to the Cloyne Report, O’Callaghan wrote in a 2008 letter that he was “more than disappointed at the policy of the Irish Bishops as a whole … The Bishops rolled over under pressure from the media. And they expected Rome to endorse them!”
Not to diminish the serious sin of the RCC but Please examine the Jehovah’s Witnesses who go door to door and come on our property.
Jehovah’s Witnesses pedophiles.
Many court documents and news events prove that Jehovah’s Witnesses require two witnesses when a child comes forward with allegations of molestation within the congregation. Such allegations have customarily been treated as sins instead of crimes and are only reported to authorities when it is required to do so by law, (which varies by state).
It has also been shown that child molesters within the organization usually have not been identified to the congregation members or the public at large. These people engage in a door to door ministry, possibly exposing children to pedophiles.
The Watchtower corporation has paid out millions in settlement money already.
– Danny Haszard abuse victim
You know, it’s always baffling that none of the victims or their families, or at least hardly anyone, went to the police — I mean here in America, in Ireland, everywhere. Of course sometimes police covered it up too. But I mean, why? It can’t possibly be that every one of them was afraid that it was going against God to go to the police — first, that would be contrary to Catholic doctrine, even though many might not have known that, and second, much of the abuse still took place in the ’80s and ’90s, when it’s hard to believe that most ordinary Catholics (I’m talking about here in America) would think it would be going against God to go to the police. Why does no one go to the police? It’s sadly tragic and ironic that for all of them who did report it (and certainly not all did), their instinct was to go to the Church.
Is part of it the fear of shame and stigma?
Also — it doesn’t reduce the guilt of Church leaders at all or lessen the magnitude of the problem in the Church, but “they say” that this is as large a problem in the public schools, with the same sort of cover-up. In Denver and also in New York, when they wanted to have a window on the statute of limitations, weren’t the bills defeated due to loss of support once they were extended to cover government institutions too? If so, what is “the government” hiding?
The scandals are so horrifying, sad, frustrating, and infuriating — but at the same time, I’ve always found them baffling, bewildering, and intriguing, in the sense that I have this hunch that our perspective or categories or paradigms are “off” somehow. I don’t know how to explain it, and I don’t have the right words, but I just sense that there’s something bigger here about society as a whole, as if it’s not so simple as “the Church is corrupt” (even though it often is, despite the papacy, episcopacy, and priesthood still being divinely established, I believe).
I’ll think about it more and perhaps later post some analogies to hypothetical situations to kind of uncover more of what I mean.
Brendan McGrath: We can’t know why individual parents didn’t go to the police when and if they discovered the abuse in good time.
I would bet that any parent who had a concrete and current account from their child feared for their child. What would it mean for a young person (to say nothing of a child) to explain the abuse to the police in detail, to be confronted by the priest, and if the matter was pursued to have to testify in court before a judge and jury? Is it hard to imagine that this route might seem to a parent as harmful to a child/young person as the abuse itself?
Just a thought.
Brendan McGrath,
Could you explain why you believe the papacy, episcopacy, and priesthood were “divinely established”? What sources lead you to this conclusion?
If an article about the testimony of Msgr. Lynne in the Philadelphia sex abuse scandal in the Philadelphia Inquirer is true:
“In the testimony, taken between 2002 and 2004, the officials portrayed themselves as hamstrung by canonical laws and edicts from Rome favorable to accused priests.” (“What Lynne told grand jury of abuse”- 9/2/2011)
Brendan, you first may want to read a bit more about the scandals and the dynamics of child sexual abuse for the victims and family, and the particular context of abuse in a deeply Catholic culture like that of Boston or Ireland, for example.
Of course this is not unique to the Catholic Church, but the church scandal also has aggravating factors.
There are any number of books out there that could help you in your deliberations.
Brendan –
I suspect that parents often had a number of reasons for not going to the police, among them fear that it would add even more to the child’s trauma, fear that the police would believe the priest rather than the child, lack of corroborating evidence, and some parents might not have believed the child or thought the child misinterpreted some actions of the priest or exaggerated. Some did go to the police and were not believed.
The site bishopsaccountability.org is a database of articles in newspapers, court documents including sworn testimony of various sorts, other sort sorts of reports, etc. There are mountains of data there that will help you to understand. It is all very disturbing.
The spotlight now turns to A/B Martin . I hope he stands with the Irish rather than with Rome.. he is in me prayers.
Helen, you are spot on. The Vatican’s response is designed to forestall any liability on its part for abuse anywhere. The dishonesty of it is both clear and typical.
The Vatican specializes in a type of communication charitably described as deflection and evasion. Indirect statements that can be interpreted multiple ways satisfy the imperative to avoid responsibility and escape blame.
It’s like trying to grab a fistful of eels — of course there is no policy stating something forthrightly, only a long, long record of actions to the contrary. But, you see, since there is no policy that can be specified, then what actually happened is just your misinterpretation, your error. Never did they say openly, do not report to civil authorities, but the hyper-focus on secrecy and avoidance of scandal saturated clerical culture.
Those priests who actually did report to police were censured and removed from their positions, a lesson not lost on everyone else. Rev. Bruce Teague in MA and John Conley under Levada in San Fran come immediately to mind. Every priest I asked told me it was unthinkable to report to police. And the church fought hard in legislatures not to require mandatory reporting under the law for clergy.
As to canon law issues in all this:
Note Jason Berry and Gerald Renner’s book and DVD, Vows of Silence (www.vowsofsilencefilm.com), that examines the justice system of the church in detail over decades of the sexual abuse scandal.
The authors note that beginning in the fall of 1989 American bishops begged for canon law reforms to allow them more latitude in removing abusive priests.
Representatives sent to negotiate with the Vatican returned empty-handed, with the ridiculous non-sequitur that since the streamlining of canon law processes had resulted in numerous marriage annulments, similar streamlining for accused molesters “could be a threat to their rights.” (p. 130)
No response was available beyond cumbersome secret trials lasting perhaps up to ten years, and that constituted impediments in civil case discovery. Bishops were also aware of their ineffectiveness. Read where priests like Anthony Cipolla and Robert Trupia appealed to Rome, and despite compelling evidence to the contrary, had their suspensions revoked. It took years of follow-up to get these molesters removed.
Again in 1993, a delegation of American bishops unsuccessfully pleaded for reforms. JPII personally denied them greater autonomy under canon law.”You’ll get no quick fixes out of me,” he told them (p. 93).
Finally by 1994, after ignoring abuse victims, JPII allowed two changes: the statute of limitations was extended from five to ten years after the victim turned 18, and the age of minority was extended from 16 to under 18. (Never mind that an average age of survivors reporting abuse has been the mid-40’s at the earliest. And the scapegoat theory that the pope just did not know is questionable at best.)
In 1995, the church’s highest court modified canon 1044 on “psychic defect” to include a sane priest with a “general mental disorder.” IOW, at least you did not have to be judged insane to be removed.
In 1997, the pronuncio was peppering US bishops with questions about diocesan policies and procedures that could be “canonically null.”
Fast forward to Dallas, 2002 after survivor lawsuits, the courts and the media brought episcopal negligence to the fore. Under guidance by the PR firm of R.F. Binder, bishops went into major damage control with the Dallas Charter and Essential Norms.
By 2002-2003, JPII allowed the CDF to waive “prescription” in individual cases, the canonical equivalent of statutes of limitation. The CDF could henceforth handle abuse cases using an administrative or non-judicial process.
The prime exhibit of the injustices of the Vatican’s canon law system is the case of Legion of Christ founder Marcial Maciel. Eight Legion seminarians filed a case in 1998 that was deep sixed due to Maciel’s influence with JPII; a “delicate matter” according to Ratzinger to charge someone who had done so much for the church.
Nothing for eight long years, and then no verdict on the merits. Only a face-saving slap on the hands for Maciel in 2006 “inviting” him to a life of prayer and penance.
Tom Doyle goes into detail how the Vatican revises history on the question of reporting to civil authorities. See his direct quotes from Vatican officials how priests should NOT be reported to police. But, “We never said not to report,” in its response to Cloyne is the Vatican’s latest reiteration of its self-excusing drivel.
Revising history Vatican style
http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/revising-history-vatican-style
Again, Bonhoeffer nails the dishonesty: “Communicating truthfully means more than factual accuracy…There is a way of speaking which is…entirely correct and unexceptionable, but which is, nevertheless, a lie…When an apparently correct statement contains some deliberate ambiguity, or deliberately omits the essential part of the truth…it does not express the real as it exists in God.”
Telling the truth ““is a matter of correct appreciation of real situations and of serious reflection upon them.” IOW, not whether something is distinctly in the policy manual or not.
Reinforcing the mendacity of the Vatican is Paul Moses’ current review of Jason Berry’s new book, Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church:
“Berry’s book demonstrates that the sexual-abuse scandal is not so much about sex or psychiatry or the mores of the 1960s as it is about the abuse of power… The crux of the problem, Berry charges, is “institutionalized lying.” Amen, Amen.
http://commonwealmagazine.org/greased-palms
NCR has Archbp. Martin’s comments on the Vatican response here – http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/archbp-martin-comments-vatican-response-irish-govt
Brendan,
Tthe mentality that doesn’t report abuse … when I was five I was abused by a family member and though I told my mother and the abuser admitted it, no one went to the police and I was told to just forget about it. A couple of years later another family member abused me and I didn’t tell anyone because I didn’t see the point. When I was an adult I asked my mom why she didn’t do anything and she just said she thought I’d forget it. I then told her about the other guy and she refused to believe me. Sometimes the abused person feels so outmatched by circumstances, the shame of perhaps having brought things on themselves, the “guilt” of making a mess, the difficulty of convincing others, that they just give up. This is why mandatory reporting is so important, and also the publicity that takes this stuff into the light.
http://www.philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/images/Grand_Jury_Report.pdf (molestation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Congregation_of_Christian_Brothers (a Catholic group that runs reform schools and orphanages in Ireland, italy, etc
And why did the church pick on boys – because there weren’t any alter girls until recently.
And of course its so eaasy for the priests – the boys “link to God” to terrorize the victims and threaten them with hell if the kid rats them out.
Its all about power and money and sexual frustration. The church allowed priestts to marry until about 1000AD. Then it changed the rules and made the priests marry the church
So the church, and not the priests family would inherit his wealth.
BTW a technical term for priests starved for sex and ultimately the sex wins out (we arae all sexual creatures) is “sexual immaturity” Which is how people deprived of sex by fear ultimately become active but pick up at the mental age where they left off
The church would have been a lot better off with more gay priests – because they would have been having consensual sex with age appropriate other priests.
Enda Kenny lied about the Holy See in his hysterical speech to the Irish Parliament. Kenny’s lies are now being cited as a justification for Communist control of the Catholic Church in China, and Kenny’s government is supporting legislation to remove legal protection from the seal of the confessional. The Holy See was right to provide this reasoned response to Kenny.
An earlier sober and factual analysis of the Cloyne Report may be found here: http://thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.com/2011/07/cloyne-report-tackling-prevailing-myths.html
I was target of sexual misconduct by a priest once, told my parents and told them that I had immediately reported it to the offending priest’s superior (not to the police!). First they were in disbelief and thought I must have been confused. Then once I gave enough details that doubts could no longer remain, my mother said “I wouldn’t have reported him”. Her reasons? “Why not leave him alone, avoid him from now on, and forget about it. He’s old.”
There is the automatic repulsed reaction at the prospect of reporting someone — distrust of police and of authority. A strong preference to deal with problems on one’s own, without getting police involved. A great reluctance — it’s easier to “forget” and put skeletons in the cupboard than to face problems squarely.
I once reported a fugitive from the justice to the police. My parents also said they would not have done it. Why not? “Because I have lived long enough and seen enough things to know that justice cannot be trusted. I would not turn someone in.” — distrust of justice and of authority.
Crystal,
Thank you for linking to Martin’s comments. He is the only clerical shining light in Ireland I can find. He notes though:
“One of the key points of the Taoiseach’s intervention was the assertion that “the Holy See attempted to frustrate an enquiry in a sovereign democratic republic as little as three years ago not three decades ago”. There is no evidence presented in the Murphy Report to substantiate this, the Holy See could find no evidence and the Department of An Taoiseach’s office said that the Taoiseach was not referring to any specific event. This merits explanation.”
By contrast, Grant, in his outstanding post on (Taoiseach) Kenny’s speech wrote July 30 wrote:
“Amazingly, in 2006 the Vatican could not manage to acknowledge correspondence from the Murphy commission (asking for files). “Instead,” McGarry (Irish reporter) writes, “it complained the commission did not use proper channels.”
So the next year the commission followed proper procedure, asking the nuncio to forward correspondence to Rome (asking for files). Silence. Again in 2009, the commission contacted the next nuncio, including a copy of the draft report. No reply.
Kenny’s critics have complained that he unfairly blamed Rome for the faults of the local church. Apparently they either don’t grasp that apostolic nuncios are officials of the Vatican appointed by the pope or they don’t know how uncooperative some have been.”
Here is the problem: By any common sense understanding of the matter, the Vatican refused to cooperate with the Murphy Commission. But it did so by not responding to requests for files, even after the use of proper channels. It did not actually say or write, “We will not provide files,” but simply ignored requests for cooperation.
Now, one can say, there is no evidence the Vatican did not cooperate, as the Vatican and Martin do. Technically true. No letter exists denying access to files. So, we are supposedly left with this unjust charge against the Vatican.
But how accurate is that when clarifying the matter? Ignoring repeated inquiries somehow doesn’t count as non-cooperation, because there is no documentary “evidence” in support?
I don’t think so, and I hope my reading of Grant’s post as in agreement is accurate.
In my view, Kenny is exactly right. The Vatican did frustrate the Murphy Commission inquiry, even though the Murphy Commission may not have included mention of its efforts to get Vatican documents in its final report. Unsurprisingly, the Vatican likewise could find no “evidence” of its stonewalling.
So, voila, the charge is unsubstantiated. Or is it? What of the reality, the fact of the Vatican’s passive, backhanded manner of ignoring document requests? Complete silence repeatedly. That equates in my moral compass to guilty as charged. One can frustrate an investigation through omission rather than commission, which is exactly what the Vatican did, notwithstanding its verbal gymnastics.</i?
Thank you Carolyn for laying things out so clearly.
Abp Martin is not shy about criticizing his fellow bishops or Catholic clerical culture in general, but he is reluctant to criticize the Holy See, I think. He is outspoken but not a loose canon; he is aware of the consequences of his words.
Final post to show how the same use of tactical silence is copied by bishops. Just ignore a request, then there is no evidence of anything. Works beautifully re: reporting to civil authorities, frustrating inquiries (obstruction of justice), or intimidating survivors.
Church bullying alleged victims, lawyer says
By J.M. Hirsch, Associated Press
Nashua (NH) Telegraph
November 26, 2002
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/main.asp?ArticleID=68598&SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&S=1
Concord, N.H. — Roman Catholic Church officials are trying to intimidate 36 alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests by declining to help keep their names confidential, their lawyer said Monday.
Mark Abramson said he has offered to give the names to the Diocese of Manchester if it agrees to keep them confidential, but has gotten no response from the diocese’s lawyers.
“They haven’t even given us the courtesy of a reply,” Abramson said. “Their efforts are very transparent. They are hoping to try to embarrass or humiliate the victims into not going forward with their claims.”
Spokesman Pat McGee denied that the diocese is trying to intimidate the 36. He said the door is “always open” to a mediated or negotiated settlement keeping the names confidential, provided it’s done out of court.
The 36 sued the diocese anonymously along with 21 of Abramson’s clients who are identified by name in court papers.
Abramson stressed that he is not asking the court to keep the names secret, but for the church to agree not to disseminate the names. Adult victims of sexual assaults usually are identified in court papers, but news organizations do not use the names without the victims’ permission.
Abramson said the church’s stance belies its claim that the welfare of the victims is paramount.
“It’s just another example of how phony their claim is that all they’re concerned about are the victims,” Abramson said.
“I don’t believe for a second think they are really interested in helping these victims out,” he said. “They’re interested in putting the scandal behind them any way they can.”
Bishop John B. McCormack repeatedly has said the church must respect the confidentiality of victims. In a June deposition in an unrelated lawsuit, McCormack said victims needed to know they can report allegations to the church in confidence, without it becoming public and rising “to the level of a scandal.”
The diocese asked for the names after settlement talks broke down over money. In an Oct. 3 letter to James Higgins, lawyer for the diocese, Abramson said he would provide the names as long as the diocese agreed not to make them public. Higgins has not responded to Abramson and referred calls for comment to McGee.
Carolyn Disco, as usual, is exactly correct. Didn’t we all learn about commission and then omission in about the Catholic 5th grade.? In the 8th grade we learned that quibbling was totally unacceptable. To see these Church leaders quibbling is sad and disgusting that leads to loss of hope.Who but ‘head in sand’ Catholics would be appeased by this weasel wording? So this crap then, must be only for hierarchal consumption… so they can do a Pilate like hand wash in public. . .The Irish should not except the nuncio back and wait for a year for the new guy. My prayers for A/B Martin are not yet answered.
I still don’t see what the problem is here, but it was a problem here in the US also. The court simply informs the bishop that it is investigating a possible crime and subpoenas all documents that the bishop has on the subject under investigation. It then names a date by which those documents must be delivered. If the date arrives and those documents are not delivered, the bishop is jailed for contempt of court. The court then orders the police to seize all relevant records from the diocese. I don’t understand tip toeing around a bishop. This is not a theological issue. This is a criminal issue. Of course, it would be lovely if the bishop cooperated, just like it would be lovely if every citizen cooperated with the law, however…Whether it involves an issue of Canon Law might be of academic interest, but of no other interest. Canon Law is not protected by any of the infallibility umbrellas. I think that it is time for the Irish state to compel the cooperation that it seeks.
It is also time to pass a mandated child abuse reporting law. It is scandalous that has not already been done. It needs to pass a Good Samaritan Law to protect reporters except in cases of malicious reporting. It needs to require that all reporting be made to civil authorities. It needs to specifically state that reporting to anyone else does not fulfill the law. RCC priests and bishops do not require any more or less protection under the law than any other citizen. I does, however, seem as if the children of Ireland require that the state step up to the plate for them. As for the RCC stepping up to the plate for the children, please remember that it is the first obligation of any institution to protect that institution. Yes, I am a practicing Roman Catholic. No, I am not really very happy with my Church.
The Church will survive, but it is up to the laity to make sure that it survives as a much more transparent institution. The proudest moment of my life as a Roman Catholic was when the good citizens of Boston, Mass. brought a Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop down from the streets. Bernard Law’s actions were despicable, and they made him as well as the Vatican very aware that they would not have him. A bishop can only lead if people will follow him.
There is a careful analysis on this Australian Catholic website by the poster “James”
http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=83002
The Cloyne Response – More petrol on the flames by James, Sunday, September 04, 2011, 03:49
For my own comment, in response to the question why the police are/were not notified, I know personally two priests who have been put on administrative leave due to allegations of abuse. In both cases the police have investigated and given a decision of No grounds for further action.
1) A young priest was accused of grooming a boy toddler, two years after the incident which occurred in the presence of the child’s mother. She had made amorous overtures to the priest and been rebuffed. Then she reported the “abuse.” The priest was required to undergo professional therapy and assessment, both secular and religious, and was declared extremely unlikely to have been guilty. (These professionals never give a NOT GUILTY verdict). But as all this took more than 3 years, it was too late to restore his good name and he is now in secular employment.
2) An allegation was laid by a disabled woman (and therefore a “vulnerable adult”) against an old priest (80+) that over 20 years ago during a visit to her home he had suggested that she was “personally special”. This she regarded as a statement of sexual interest. In fact she had asked to speak with him and as she is wheelchair-bound, inevitably he paid a private visit to her home. I do not know whether he ever visited her again; he has only the faintest recollection of the woman, after a lifetime of extensive and valued work with young adults, their parents and with other priests. When his superior was informed of the allegation, he immediately informed the police who promptly arrested the priest, and conducted an extensive enquiry. Amid howls of incredulity from a vast throng of this priest’s friends, they “trawled” for further evidence and found none and so declared him “free.” This judgment was not acceptable to the diocesan safeguarding officer who has told him to his face that she “knows” he is lying and will not allow him to resume work in his congregation, nor even to attend Mass in any Catholic church.
Not all accusations are well-founded.
Perhaps there are
“…canonical laws and edicts from Rome favorable to accused priests.”
because
“Not all accusations are well-founded.”
Carolyn Disco is spot on.
pace Thorin, who easily uses the term lies. Edna Keeny has isued a response (an uodate here>)
What matters is how the Vatican’s response wil be seen in Ireland for its credibility.
As to the US, maybe we need a thread on the Lynn Garnd Jury testimony published recently in Philly after the Judge there allowed it.
If you don’t see a problem in the way issues of abuse were (and are – see kansas City, for example). you’re purblind.
Clearly the Vatican, like many Irish priests, was unhappy that the bishops embraced the framework document that obliged them to mandatory reporting, so Msgr O’Callaghan could appeal to the mind of the Vatican in refusing to report allegations against dead or dying priests.
The Vatican correctly notes that the Irish Government and the present governing party when in opposition blocked mandatory reporting legislation (3 times). I think it will not go through this time either, since no Irish family wants the sort of attention the clergy have received.
The simple solution is for people to take allegations directly to the cops as with any other sort of crime.
Sam Hill, do you envisage a law that makes it mandatory for victims themselves and their parents to report?
Ed Gleason, the Vatican is shooting goldfish in a bowl with Kenny’s speech.
I hate to add this, but this thread also made me think of theTheologicla studies thread.
Half truths and propaganda to soften Roman questionable action.
Rome is aggreived by the terrible actions in Ireland – true; Rome is as innocent as the driven snow in all of this -sure?
I thought the mention of “lies” here was really hypocritical -command and control beauracracies utilize the big lie and (again I hate to say this) offer cover to the excuse of I was just folowing orders.
I am deeply saddened by seeing that in our Church today, but I have little patience with defenders who try to smooth things over.
Honesty and accountability, I realize, are lessser coinages in our world of spin today.
But expecting better from the Church (all too human, Iknow) is still what we should be doing.
Here’s the response at bishop accountability.org, which captures very well the coercive quality of the letter the Nuncio sent to the Irish Bishops concerning implementation of anything like
mandatory reporting. How many Bishops could have mistaken the message sent by such a letter?
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/statements/2011_09_03_McKiernan_Vatican_Cloyne_Response.htm
And here is the letter of the Nuncio:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/vatican/1997_01_31_Storero_Letter_to_Irish_Bishops.pdf
Reading that letter makes one appreciate the artful evasion of the Vatican’s present response. How many canon lawyers must have labored over that slippery piece of prose?
[...] Blog Search- Read More Church Ministry News Here: dotCommonweal » Blog Archive » Vatican responds to Cloyne Report Destiny Image Films endeavors to tell inspirational stories that will touch and change lives. We [...]
Mr. O Leary,
These laws already exist. I made none of this up. I taught in California for 26 years under just such a set of laws. To your questions…Requiring victims to report themselves is victimizing the victim. Very difficult to enforce. Parents?; failure to do so is child neglect or endangerment. The laws list all mandated reporters which includes clergy, school personnel, medical personnel, and all others who work with children. As a teacher, I was required to submit to the school district annually a signed acknowledgement of my understanding of the laws’ requirements to report all known or suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. Had to do it several times. Didn’t like it a bit. None of the ones I reported came to much except for the time when I reported a parent for failing to take a child to the doctor after the school nurse told her to do so as she, the nurse, suspected that the child had appendicitis. When I reported it, the child had been sent, by us, to the hospital for peritonitis. He survived…just, but had a dilly of a scar that he insisted on showing everyone. What action the state took against the mother, I’ve no idea. There is no feedback to the reporter, who remains anonymous, unless it involves a court case that requires testimony.
The confessional must, of course, remain sacrosanct, but no information obtained in any other manner should have any protection nor should anyone having that information.
As for Irish families not wanting the attention, I empathize. This is an issue that no one wants, and yet it is an issue. How to solve it without involving an entity that appears to be much more interested in covering its own tail than in cooperating?
Here in the US, if there was any discussion between the national government and the Vatican, it was not reported in the press. The local legal entities, city and state, simply moved against the individual diocese. Several of those diocese are now bankrupt or close to it, and there are several priests in prison. The only ones prosecuted were the perpetrators of the offenses. I do not believe that any priests or bishops were prosecuted for cover up or impeding justice, though they should have been. It broke my heart as a bishop who was my pastor as a young man was implicated in the cover up in the diocese to which he had subsequently been transferred. He was already dead at the time that his involvement was discovered. I’ve not told my family about it. He was a dearly loved man. Best to leave it that way.
Please, do understand, that I am very aware that my post was/is presumptuous. I am an American not an Irishman. The Irish will come to, or not, an Irish solution to the problem. Things will never again be as once they appeared to be. So, what now? We strive for a new normalcy.
“I am deeply saddened by seeing that in our Church today, but I have little patience with defenders who try to smooth things over.”
Bob, defenders are trapped inside that snare that the pope and the bishops are the church. Except when the pope opposes the invasion of Iraq and the like. Peter clearly went against that when he made all the “royal priesthood.” Those who want empire isolated the priesthood of all the faithful. But you are so right. The defenders are the enablers of a corrupt hierarchy. The hierarchy will continue to demand blind obedience as long as there are enough enablers to encourage a sacralized hierarchy.
Susan, one point of detail: the analysis at bishop-accountability.org keeps criticizing what “Pope Benedict” is saying and explaining in the response. But in the response itself, it is no “Pope Benedict” but “the Holy See” that is talking, expressing shame, and responding.
We can imagine Pope Benedict crafting beautiful theological meditations and letting lawyers take care of those messy government matters. If this response is shot down, there will be further margin for various individuals to say “it’s not me” and further evade responsibility. There are no names behind this response.
Also note that Pope Benedict, as far as I know, has stopped talking about sexual abuse by clerics. He is also getting quite old. Perhaps he no longer gets directly involved with such matters. There is no “point person” on the subject. Any other government would have a minister whose sole mandate would be to deal with that, but not the Holy See. It is just one of the mandates of the CDF (whose head is Cardinal Levada), whose sub-office responsible for prosecuting sexual abuse cases and other cases is headed by Msgr Scicluna.
The fact that there is no name attached to the Vatican’s sexual abuse policy shows lack of clarity. The fact that no one in the Vatican has that task as his sole mission shows bad priorities.
I can’t help but think that that’s voluntary. Anonymous higher authority, with no one actually taking responsibility: that’s the Vatican way.
Joseph O Leary says “Ed Gleason, the Vatican is shooting goldfish in a bowl with Kenny’s speech.” You may know more than me about how many Irish are left in the bowl . The Roman quibble will not make it any easier to keep the fish they have left… .
Claire ==
You bring up an important point. I sometimes wonder whether popes should be elected over the age of, say, 68. With extremely rare exceptions — maybe — very old people simply do not have the energy to take on hugely demanding jobs, much less mammoth ones like being pope. And I think that in their mid-70s popes should be retired. With younger ones elected and a cut-off date in the 70s no one would be pope too long. Yes, there might be a few extraordinary individuals with the energy to persist, but it is more likely that we are more likely to be saddled with someone whose mental abilities are starting to fail, or worse.
Having known many senile old people, I’m convinced that the Vatican must have many more than its share, and this, I’m sure, is one of the reasons the Church is so very badly run. (One of the marks of age and senility is increasing and unreasonable fear of change, something the Vatican is noted for!) This opinion is not prejudice on my part — I”m 81 myself. It’s a matter of having watched a number of minds deteriorate, and not always slowly.
Ann, far from me the idea of suggesting that Pope Benedict may be becoming senile! But, yes, I agree with your larger point.
As I slowly grow older I am gradually realizing that there is a kind of wisdom that comes from living, but there are other qualities that degrade with age and that are needed to deal efficiently with sexual abuse, corruption, or organizing a new translation.
I don’t see signs of senility in the Pope, but I do think that he seems physically weaker than when he assumed the papacy. I doubt that a man his age has the physical energy to give his attention to the terrible work load that goes with being pope. Sure, he has a lot of help, but he still must review proposals, make decisions, make myriads of public appearance, etc., etc., etc. It’s not a job for a very ole man, especially since the Church has grown so enormously in the last 100 years of so.
If he retired, he could give all his attention to basic theology, which even we liberals seem to agree he excels at. And he could be counsellor to a new pope.
“Anonymous higher authority, with no one actually taking responsibility: that’s the Vatican way.”
Claire,
It is just not no one taking responsibility. The reality is that in the Vatican there are a lot of warring factions who are pushing their own agendas. Contradictions coming from Rome are commonplace, as a result. John Cornwall who wrote “Hitler’s Pope” and other critiques of Rome, wrote a great book about the Vatican that was actually commissioned by the Vatican. Rome mainly wanted to show that there was no “murder” of John Paul I. The book is valuable mostly for showing the intrique and pettiness that exists there. The title is “A thief in the night.” The Vatican is a very human place which must be handled with discernment.
http://www.amazon.com/Thief-Night-Life-Death-Vatican/dp/0141001836
I am in Dublin now and the general view seems to be that the Vatican has been offensive by answering Kenny’s precise legal accusations in a precise legal way. The whole point of Kenny’s speech was to express outrage and it is not enough for the Vatican to say they share that outrage. There is a fabulous double bind here: clergy are asked to speak but their script is written for them, and the least effort to correct inaccurate accusations is dismissed as quibbling. Archbishop Martin has called for a reasoned and temperate response to the Vatican’s temperate document; but reasoning and temperance are politically verboten.
The macro-picture is that the Vatican has centered all power and authority in itself, but is in reality unable to handle the ensuing responsibilities. It is easy to appoint yes men as bishops, to silence theologians, to stonewall on celibacy. But the positive energies of governance that would handle effectively the abuse scandal are beyond the Vatican’s reach. The Catholic Church can be governed only collegially and the Vatican’s refusal to recognize this is now costing them a huge loss in credibility.
Did they positively obstruct the bishops’ handling of the abuse scandal in Ireland? My impression is that their negative noises were confined to the issue of mandatory reporting, a duty self-imposed by the bishops but enjoying no legal status either in civil or canon law.
Some will point to World Youth Day as a sign of the Vatican’s ongoing spiritual and moral success. But who attends these rallies? The children of a beleaguered band of conservative Catholics, not at all representative of Catholic youth.
While there are (as in many if not all) beauracracies factions playing games, the face of the Vatican today is the face of CDF and fortress that admits no wrongs or desires no change except what it apptoves,. BXVI is not senile but despite his own intellectual prowess is very closeminded on matters Church.
But more and more Catholics keep drifting or moving away or even rebelling as in Austria and IMO Australia. (BTW I think Fr. O’Leary is correct on his generalization on WYD.)
The impact in Ireland is I suspect huge drift and some if not large departure.
Meanwhile Gilmore and Rome talk of “constructive dialogue.” What will that mean?????
Joseph S. O’Leary:
“Some will point to World Youth Day as a sign of the Vatican’s ongoing spiritual and moral success. But who attends these rallies? The children of a beleaguered band of conservative Catholics, not at all representative of Catholic youth.
I do not want to distract from the topic of this post but your comment struck a chord with me. I had observed the same thing.
You may want to view this video posted after WYD. It was uploaded by DefendUsInBattleBlog on Aug 28, 2011 and, according to the person who created it, is a video ‘promo’ for a “youth group”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk4OCzre_IY&feature=player_embedded
Bob N. –
And with whom would the Vatican dialogue? Only bishops? Bishops and victims and parents? Theologians? I’d bet the farm that the Vatican doesn’t have Enda Kenny nor the editors of the great Irish newspapers in mind, nor anyone else with real power.
It looks to me like the only groups with real power that the Vatican ever really talks to are certain religious groups — mainly Lutherans, Conservative Anglicans, certain Orthodox and Jews. As I see the Vatican the only time it talks to anybody is when it thinks it has a very strong chance of winning a debate.
Wow! Just noticed. Poster in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Diocese of Cloyne, Cobh, Ireland.
One of the nuns who taught me and whose religious name was Colman, told me that this cathedral was the last place that Irish emigrants to the U.S. heard Mass on Irish soil, since most left on ships from the port of Cobh.
Mr. Gilmore of the Irish government says he welcomes a “constructive dialogue” with the vatica.
Mr. Kenny doesn’t seem impressed.
I agree, Ann, with your onclusions.
With age comes wisdom. The problem is not the Pope’s age. The problem is that he fundamentally does not see he or the Vatican as complicit. The problem is that he and the Vatican appartchik have deliberately and systematically constructed and built the system such that they do not ever, ever have to take responsibility for anything. That is by design and deliberate. Obviously. There is not further need for any speculation as to what is going on.
As Maya Angelou once said, “when people show you who they are….believe them!”
Our best hope for reform lies with the courts pressing to sue the Vatican, and the international criminal court.
Even if these are not Catholic, they serve the Church not unlike Cyrus who was a non-Jew and helped the Israelites be free. There is precedent in salvation history.
Afterall Christ promised to be with his church to the end – not the Vatican bureaucracy.
By continuing to write about the Vatican’s responses, reactions, decisions, etc., on the sexual abuse crisis, we are maintaining a fallacy, namely, that we have some respect for those words and some belief in their integrity. Why bother? In reality, they lost all credibility some time ago.
I would suggest that it is time to give the Vatican the silent treatment and ignore the “news” that come from there on the subject of sexual abuse.
Claire,
My concern is that silence can imply consent. My habit, obviously, is not to be silent, and allow the Vatican’s self-serving mendacity to go unchallenged.
Making the lack of credibility public must be helpful in some realm, please Lord. I certainly appreciate your comments.
Often, people do not know the facts in opposition. Reading the honeyed words out of Rome must not be the final answer.
But, stopping the money has real impact. Remember, only 11% of Peter’s Pence is publicly accounted for expenditures for its stated purpose.
Thanks. I also appreciate your comments. They point the finger at the right places to set things straight.
At the same time, this kind of thread feels a bit repetitive. Lining up damning facts again and again has got to be wearisome. Replacing that hard work by bitter comments only provides fodder to the few readers who think the church is being attacked. Silence may be a trap that can imply consent, but isn’t it just another trap to engage in discussion as if there was something constructive as basis for discussion?
As to stopping the money, it has one major fault: we can only do it once. After that, what action is there left to take next time the Vatican behaves scandalously?
Stopping the money is a non-working tactic. They have enough left for two or three life times. LA paid out 700 -800 million in abuse and defense and is chugging along nicely.
In the early sixties an old tired Rosa Parks would not move to the back of the bus, and a a Catholic Worker burned a draft card and these tactics changed everthing.
A brand new tactic will happen to change everything in the Church that needs changing… it just has not yet surfaced yet.
If I may add two points:
- appears that Rome continues to use sophistry to address Irish and world perceptions. One issue (still pending in an Oregon case being argues by Andersen) is laid out in the Cloyne Response. It is a careful, legal synopsis of episcopal structure and connection to Rome. Unfortunately, it lays out a theory that has really never been lived. Bishops are appointed by Rome; technically, they follow the gospel mandates – Rome argues that bishops are not “employees” of Rome. And yet, this leaves bishops with no accountability in the current structure. The lie to this are the repeated events just this year in which Rome has acted decisively against bishops when the issue is female ordination; married clergy; abortion/birth control. Abuse of children continues to be way down on the list. This Response carefully (like a good legal document should) lays out its own parameters – no mention of Crimen Solicitationes or JPII’s follow up document on abuse; it cleverly mixes up the chronolgy in terms of the proposed Framework by skipping over the fact that Rome did not finally rule clearly on reporting to civil authorities until 2002 (long after the Framework and only after the US bishops were in Rome). During the time period of the Framework (remember the context – an Irish government had already fallen over sexual abuse) there was a desperate internal fight going on in Rome over civil reporting and assuming the “good name” of any accused priest. The Response uses agreed upon procedures that are very recent to reply to Kenny……the usual sophistry that CS never prevented any bishop from reporting abuse (?); that the Irish episcopal conference could have ruled on the Framework and sought a recognitio (fat chance); and the on-going escape clause that reporting alleged abuse harms the good name of a priest (guess that turns our western concept of law upside down; can’t arrest or charge anyone because their good name may be harmed – what would happen to society if that were true)
the second point picks up on Archbishop Martin – he seems to be approaching this response by giving the benefit of the doubt to Rome but then highlighting his consistent line that the bishops during the Framework failed in their responsibilities and that Rome should hold them accountability (even if this means fewer dioceses and retiring all bishops named prior to 2002). This is one approach although it does not address the salient questions in point one.
Wait a minute: Who’s side is Archbishop Martin on?
Claire, this kind of thread is repetitive. It is like countless others that depend on the unspoken assumption that, somehow, the right tactic will appear and bring about the honesty, integrity, awareness, courage, trust, and accountability to all the Faithful that is so obviously and painfully missing.
Consider the alternative assumption suggested by experience. No possible combinations of embarrassment, bad PR, money withholding, walkouts, petitions, silent treatment, priest reform groups, or grand juries are capable of getting through to bring about significant institutional change. (A few lonely individuals may stand out as exceptions. How many can you name out of a few thousand bishops?)
The hierarchy, including Pope, are a self-reproducing culture with lifelong formation and mutual fraternal reinforcement according to the unique culture of the Roman Catholic priesthood. The values, standards, and priorities surrounding clerical sexual abuse of children that were called an American problem when the Boston disgrace was unveiled in 2002 have been found around the world from Austria to Australia. The ensemble is not unwilling to change – it is incapable of doing so.
As a thought experiment, imagine the Catholic churches of 2020 under the alternative assumption with the hierarchy having proceeded in their accustomed fashion for another decade.
NEWS OF THE DAY:
The Catholic internet community is widely reporting Pope Benedict’s exhortation about the duty of “fraternal correction”. Does anybody besides me find this supremely ironic?
“If a fraternal correction is rebuffed, said the Pope, then Christians should follow the advice of Jesus- seek the witness of others and, if necessary, the sanction of the wider Church.
“All this indicates that there is a shared responsibility in the way of Christian life,” said Pope Benedict, “everyone, aware of their limitations and defects, is called to welcome fraternal correction and help others with this particular service.””
From: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-stresses-need-for-fraternal-correction-in-christian-life/
He was just giving a charitable heads-up before speaking face-to-face with the man who left a million Communion wafers where they got spoiled by the rainstorm the night before his final Mass at WYD in Madrid.
Ann, that’s a dangerous slope. If you let your disgust of church misdeeds color your appreciation of church meditations on general topics, who knows where that would lead? I prefer to keep those separate. Hate the corruption and the hypocrisy, but do not let it get into the way of your faith life, otherwise it’s destructive, it seems to me. It is better to read that quote in the abstract, as if it was disembodied, separating the message from the messenger, than to have the sexual abuse scandal create a barrier that prevents you from listening to whatever wisdom might be in there.
At least that’s my way of protecting my Catholic faith.
For those interested in another detailed review and analysis of the Cloyne Report, see Fr. Raymond J de Souza’s 9/3/11 article in First Things “The Holy See’s Response to the Cloyne Report”:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/09/the-holy-seersquos-response-to-the-cloyne-report
Two Irish commentaries”
Fergus Finaly talking about the “gimlet eye” of the lawyers (canon lawyers of the Vatican) with no real concern except self protection.
Desmond Fisher argues the strong catholics have moved to the sidelines from the Church,feeling betrayal and hence disgust with Rome.
I think this gives a reasonable picture of lay response in Ireland from what I see at a distance and pace the apologists for Rome. They unfortunately are devoid of insight into how deeply the Church continues to hurt itself in “ptotecti g” itself.
I think poor Abp. Martin must be deeply conflicted with his loyalty and yet what he sees on the ground.
So where is the accountability of those who shepherd “the faith life” but continue to drive many out the door?
Hallelujah (tongue in cheek)! We followed Benedict’s advice in 2003, filing the first canon case by laity seeking the removal of our bishops.
Our cover letter, when we later distributed it publicly, quoted Matt. 18: 15-17: “… If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
We established the facts, and told the church, to no avail of course. We wrote:
“We have looked to the law of the church for justice and accountability. We have employed the remedies of canon law to hold accountable bishops who failed to protect children, and whose presence continues to divide the clergy and alienate the faithful of this diocese. We have worked within the structure of the church to correct by the law of the church an injustice that scandalizes the faithful of the church.
However, despite eighteen months of correspondence and inquiries (documented in the enclosed package) we have yet to receive any substantive reply to our petition from any competent church authority. Any reasonable interpretation of church law would suggest that if members of the laity have a right and a duty to “manifest to the sacred pastors their views,” that the sacred pastors, in turn, have an obligation in equal measure to respond to a petition repeatedly and sincerely brought to their attention.”
Somehow, somewhere, a website picked up our text of the petition (not the back and forth correspondence) and anyone wanting to read all about the applicable canons, and judge personally if our case was persuasive, have at it. Brings back lots of memories.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://liberalslikechrist.org/PetitionvsNHBishops.pdf
Since the article by Fergus Finlay in the Irish Examiner has been already referenced above on this blog, and since Finlay says it better than I ever could, I reproduce below a part of Finlay’s article which accurately nails the Vatican’s “Response of the Holy See to the Government of Ireland”:
“ Read it in all its painful, pathetic and absurd detail.
“Then tell me if you can see any real compassion there, any real humility, any real pain at the suffering of victims and survivors.
“No. It’s 25 pages long and — to be generous about it — roughly a page is all it takes to outline the Catholic Church’s feelings of sorrow and shame at the abuse perpetrated by its priests and covered up by its bishops.
“The other 24 pages were written by lawyers trying to win on a technicality. And since it was published they, and their apologists who have been all over the media all weekend, have been demanding that the Government should respond to their specifics with more specifics.
“Like some sharp-suited lawyers in the [TV] version of a courtroom drama, they have tried to put the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste on the defensive with page after page of wearying technicalities.
“Even Archbishop Martin was at it. On RTÉ News on Sunday he was suggesting that the Taoiseach needs to explain what he was referring to when he spoke in the Dáil in July. He said he’d like to know exactly what Mr Kenny had meant by, what he called, a very specific allegation (the allegation that the Vatican had frustrated an inquiry).
”The archbishop told us all that it was important to know, so that we could move forward without having suspicions that there was some other unknown agenda.
”Hello? Is this really the same Archbishop Martin who virtually applauded the Taoiseach’s speech the night it was made — who said his only criticism of the speech was the Taoiseach hadn’t also apologised for the State’s failings towards children?
“The day after the Taoiseach’s speech, Archbishop Martin did an RTÉ interview where he made dark references to a “cabal” in the Church that was still refusing to address the issue of child protection.”
The only appropriate response of the Irish government to this Vatican “butt cover-up” statement is for the Dail to pass the child sex abuse mandatory reporting legislation immediately and then to vigorously prosecute all and any hierarchs who defy Irish law.
The prospect of real jail time for the hierarchs will be the only way to get the Vatican and their corporate hierarchy hacks to change their tune and get about the real business of making the Catholic Church safe for children from predatory sexual exploitation by priests.
P.S. And for all those romantics out there in the thrall of an Irish brogue, please no more talk about how Archbishop Diarmuid Martin is the advent of the next coming of St. Patrick, rescuing Irish Catholicism from the snakes in Vatican!!! Martin it seems to have drunk the same laced Kool-Aid as all other hierarchs.
How could Martin rise the office of Archbishop of Dublin without the support of the most reactionary members of the curia (especially Ratzinger)??? How could Martin now be expected to turn his back on his hierarch buddies so easily??? Please…
Jim J. –
It seems to me that Archbishop Martin has admitted the iniquity of what was done to the children and I don’t doubt his sorrow is sincere. But, like the others, he still has not fully understood the evil of the cover-ups. That is a very different moral issue, and one which the laity should concentrate on now.
Hopefully some good might come out of the terrible Philadelphia case — it is so awful that perhaps the Excusers who still have blinders on will finally start to remove them. Perhaps they will pay attention to the testimony in court. We’ll see what happens later this month when Cardinal Bevilacqua is forced to appear in court to establish whether or not he is truly senile and incapable of testifying in the trial to come. There is evidence that, for instance, he is listed as president of a big money-raising Church foundation. If he actually has been functioning as president it will show that he is not senile and has lied to the court. But that fact has yet to be established – or not.
Msgr. Lynn will be tried in the Spring with the priests accused of abuse. No doubt the media will go into a frenzy, so it might be best that the trial would be televised so people could see for themselves what is happening in court. At any rate, the die-hard excusers might finally begin to open their eyes.
@ Ann Olivier:
I would give even odds that Bevilacqua will ever really appear in court. I expect that he will be called to Rome on urgent business where he will be placed in the Vatican’s corrupt hierarch protection program.
Or, he could fall out a window on the top floor of the Apostolic palace while “watering one of Joey Ratz’ flower boxes!!!” Don’t laugh, its happened before – remember Albino Luciano???
Like his buddy, Bernard Law, Bevilacqua will never be allowed to testify in front of a jury by legal eagles like Jeffery Lena, the Vatican’s erstwhile consigliere. It’s just too dangerous for the hierarchs – the whole corrupt house of cards could come crashing down.
Bevilacqua, not the smartest of fellows, felons for that matter, in the hierarchy – the old ‘Peter principle’ in the flesh, could well crack under the prosecution’s cross-examination. Such a disaster on the witness stand would be devastating for the Vatican legal and public relations facades.
P.S. Remember that your friend Diarmuid Martin had his wings unceremoniously and embarrassingly, in a very public manner, clipped when the Vatican (read Ratzinger) refused to remove two complicit-in-abuse Irish bishops that Martin wanted to have rubbed out of the hierarchs’ club. If Martin wants to stay archbishop, he’ll tow the party line. Or, Martin could suddenly develop, say an inoperable cancer and be forced to retire sooner rather than later. Martin is not going to stray far off the reservation for the rest of his career – he may even get promoted if he falls in line.
Philadelphia was bad but Kansas City is worse in my opinion.
Archbishop Martin has picked his side. Unfortunate but not surprising.
I’m surprised nobody has commented on the First Things piece by Fr. Raymond de Souza to which Michael J Kelly referred us several days ago. The piece by de Souza, and the ensuing comments on the First Things site, seem like an important contribution to discerning what is going on in Ireland.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/09/the-holy-seersquos-response-to-the-cloyne-report
The irish Government Response to the Vatican is on line and has a thread (sorry,Matthew) at America’s “In All Things.”
I think Jim and all the good folks who care about this should see how the reaction in Ireland plays out and what the Irish Catholic community thinks.
Personally, I think that the desire to insulate the Vatican from criticism lies large in the mind of many (including here) whose “worldview is frightened”) see Eric’s post above by such criticism.
I essentially agree with Bob Nunz’s comment about how when one’s “worldview is frightened” it can cause one to try to numb the critique of institutions, like the Vatican, which undergird our peculiar perceptions of reality .
Pete Townsend of the rock group The WHO in his song “Crashing By Design” wrote about the phenomenon of the power of the mind to shape our reality:
Nothing must pass this line
Unless it is well defined
You just have to be resigned
You’re crashing by design
You once believed that crazy accidents
were happening to you
You were chasing a capricious wind
Whenever bad luck and trouble
happened to pursue you
The dice would surely save your skin
But when you look back you must realize
That nothing in your life’s divine
Everything that’s ever befallen you
Happened simply ’cause it crossed your mind
You’re crashing by design
Nothing must pass this line
Unless it is well defined
You just have to be resigned
You’re crashing by design
It will be almost near impossible to change the way the Catholic Church operates until we first change its self-understanding of its own collective reality.
… [Trackback] …
[...] There you will find 54788 more Infos: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=15007 [...] …