Sheep without Shepherds?
I just read a very interesting article by George Weigel assessing the “damage” that remains “After Notre Dame” in the dicesan newspaper of Fort Wayne-South Bend. In it, Weigel argues that the main problem with the whole debacle was the blurring of lines between the political and the ecclesial character of the church.
First, he suggests that the political points scored by Notre Dame and Obama were in successfully creating and selling the story line “that the Notre Dame controversy was about openness and dialogue, on the one hand, versus narrow-mindedness and fanaticism, on the other.” This is something I have also heard from some faculty at Notre Dame. The word on some streets is that the administration played the either-you-are-with-us-or-against-us game just as ferociously as some of the most ardent pro-lifers, to the point that camps were only set up on the extremes, and peaceful, reasonable, conscientious objectors to Obama receiving an honorary degree (like Bishop D’Arcy) were made invisible to the media mostly because they were not engaged by the administration. Hence, many see the situation as having been an absolute failure of dialogue.
Weigel, however, raises a broader and deeper question about the character of the Catholic Church itself. He writes: “[T]he question remains: What is the embodiment, the instantiation, the living reality of the Catholic Church to which they [the administration and trustees of Notre Dame] profess loyalty? Where is it? Who speaks for it? What difference does it make what he says?” These should be important questions for any member of a Church that has so often staked its theological claim on its ecclesial character. Just what exactly is our responsibility as Catholics to heed and be obedient to the dictates not just of the Pope, but also of our local Bishops?
To be fair (which is no small feat for him), Weigel blames the Bishops as much if not more than the faithful for, what he sees as, the failure of ecclesiology that was at the heart of the Notre Dame situation. He writes:
As for the bishops, they must now face the ecclesiological facts of life caused by four decades of ineffective catechesis compounded by the afterburn of the Long Lent of 2002 and its revelations of episcopal irresponsibility. One of the primary purposes of Vatican II was to lift up the local bishop as a genuine shepherd and father of the local church, not simply a branch manager assigned by the Roman corporate GHQ. Very few Catholics in the United States understand this, however. They may revere the pope; they may love their pastor; but they have little sense of ecclesial connection to the local bishop or understanding of his responsibilities. So when crunch time comes and bishops try to defend the Catholic identity of Catholic institutions (medical, charitable or educational), the default response of too many Catholics in the U.S. is that “this is just politics.”
I think Weigel is right to point to poor catechesis and the abuse scandals as the main reasons why many Catholics and non-Catholics have lost any sense of reverence for the ecclesial structure of the Church, but there are other reasons that Weigel passes over too quickly.
First, despite what Vatican II intended to do, too often Rome has elevated bureaucrats rather than “genuine shepherds”, and once elevated, bishops seem to spend more time running the Catholic corporation than engaged in pastoral ministry. Secondly, it seems disingenuous (a pretty easy feat for him) for Weigel to bracket the political from the ecclesial so neatly. Of course, the authority of bishops is not “just political,” but it is also not “non-political.”
If bishops are truly interested in rehabilitating their authority in the face of scarce catechetical resources and a severely discredited episcopate, they are going to have to be sensitive to both their pastoral presence and their political presence. In this “year of our priests,” perhaps it’s a good time for bishops to spend more time talking and serving with local pastors and interacting with local congregations on more than a purely ceremonial level. It may also be time for bishops to be truly radical witnesses in the public/political sphere on more issues than just the scarlet one.
Finally, it is true, as Catholic lay persons, it may be time for us to return some deference to those bishops who seek to live the call to be shepherds and admit that part of what we affirm as Catholics, as part of “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” is that we are primarily a people in need of shepherds.
“The word on some streets is that the administration played the either-you-are-with-us-or-against-us game just as ferociously as some of the most ardent pro-lifers.” I’m not sure what you mean here. Where did ND’s administration respond “ferociously”?
I think most of us faculty–even those of us who disagree with his judgment about commencement–know that Bishop D’Arcy loves Notre Dame. I went to the Baccalaureate mass the day before Graduation. Father Jenkins presided, and Bishop D’Arcy delivered his customary, warm, remarks. Neither man allowed the controversy to interfere with the culminating mass for students and their families. The respect that each had for the other–despite the disagreement–was clear. I was very moved, as were the dignitaries whom I was hosting.
Bishops are appointed by the Pope who apparently consults some persons that either he as appointed or he has retained from the appointments of his predecessor. The whole process is wrapped up in secrecy. The people of the diocese have no say whatsoever. If a bishop is successful in one relatively small diocese he may hope–and one suspects that many do hope–to be “promoted” to a larger one, and perhaps become a cardinal. (In the good old days this sort of translation was characterized as spiritual adultery.) Is it any wonder that the faithful think of their bishop as a branch manager? Someone who looks like, talks like and acts like a branch manager is naturally taken for that very thing.
It is worth noting that this system of appointment does not go very far back in time. It took its present form only in the last century! Of course the appointees are not likely to speak ill of the system by which they were appointed. That puts it in the lap of the lower clergy and the laity. What next?
Cathleen,
I merely meant to report the view that I have heard expressed from a few on campus that they felt alienated and excluded from the “dialogue” unless they expressed unequivocal support for all of Notre Dame’s decisions regarding Obama’s visit. “Ferociously” may have been too strong a characterization, but it does seem that some quite reasonable dissenters did not feel they had a place at the table. That kind of polarization on either side of the issue strikes me as disappointing. Of course, I don’t know the ins and outs as well as you probably do, and I can’t cite specific examples other than hearsay, which is why I said “the word on some streets.”
Unfortunately, it comes down to perception and media coverage, and sadly, I don’t know that many were able to witness the mass you describe or hear the nuance of D’Arcy’s position and disagreement with Jenkins. A few that I spoke with hold ND accountable for this lacuna in the coverage. Fair or not, the opinion is out there.
I received nasty, vicious messages from people I don’t know in connection with this event –and I didn’t plan it! I can only imagine the magnitude and nastiness of the messages received by Father Jenkins. Throughout it all, he conducted himself with great graciousness and respect for those who disagreed with him. I admire him greatly for this self-restraint.
I don’t know the ins and out of the negotiations, but I do know this. The percentage of students and faculty on campus who protested the invitation was extremely small. About 20 students (one percent) attended the alternative graduation. The vast majority of the student body supported the invitation. We faculty had to go in a lottery to attend the commencement. So, it is incorrect to see the campus itself as polarized, which implies a more even division.
You might say that the Church was polarized. (Even that seems untrue, as polls show.) But that does raise the question, who is (other than the local ordinary, whom I agree is important ) entitled to a place at the table–and what does that mean.? Everyone, of course, is entitled to express their views–and many people did.
Weigel’s disingenuousness aside, I’m having a hard time swallowing the line about bishops not being branch managers–at least, ever since I read John O’Malley’s latest book on Vatican II. I never paid that much attention to the Nota Praevia appended to Lumen Gentium until reading this book. I was gobsmacked by both the content of the nota and by the way in which it was “introduced” at the Council. It seems that all the rhetoric about collegiality is, at the end of the day, not much more than rhetoric.
Cathleen, It saddens me to hear about the “viciousness” you describe, and it also saddens me to hear folks say they felt alienated. Now, I don’t know enough to have an opinion about Jenkins or D’Arcy, but what Weigel said in the bit I quote matched exactly how I have heard the situation chacterized by some faculty and students on campus. That may very well be the minority position (I have an extremely limited sample size), but again, I thought I’d put it out there. Even if the camps are set 99 to 1 (between those who attended the graduation and those that didn’t), it seems important to recognize that 1, especially if it includes the local bishop. And, if it includes the local bishop, it should give us pause, as Catholics, before we jump in with the 99. Or should it?
I think the Bishop’s concerns always merit attention. But do they always require deference? It seems to me that the chain of mandatory deference is specified by canon law–which does not place ND under the jurisdiction of the bishop in the same way that a diocesan college is. Just, as by the way, personal prelatures such as Opus Dei aren’t under the jurisdiction of the bishop, Should they listen? Yes. Are they always obliged to obey? Canon law says no.
I don’t think you can assume that the reasons of the one percent weren’t heard. They were. They simply didn’t carry the day, because they didn’t persuade anyone else. Nor can you assume that the 99percent –including Father Jenkins–didn’t have theologically motivated grounding. Read his speech at commencement and you’ll see his reasons.
Today’s mass readings certainly highlight the role of the “good shepherd” quite dramatically. But what makes a “good” shepherd? Not just being appointed. The readings make it clear that some shepherds are not to be trusted. The first reading from Jeremiah is a strong attack on the sort of shepherd who misleads his flock, and will have to answer for that one day.
The mass we attended this morning was being said by a Legion of Christ priest, and I couldn’t help wondering what he was thinking as the passage from Jeremiah was read. He and his colleagues will have to deal with the fallout from misuse of authority and misplaced trust in an unworthy leader appointed and supported for decades in Rome well after his perfidy was known there.
Similarly, we all must deal now with the results of decades of mediocre political appointments from Rome, and the stale clericalism that made the abuse crisis possible. More than “careful catechetical preparation” and “an effective communications strategy” is needed to repair the relations between the episcopate and the people. Weigel seems to think that the answer to everything is his specialty”: putting the “right” spin on it all.
Sorry. We need real reform.
This story is quite after the fact and keping a real division alive.Personally, I don’t think it was worth a thread.
The division has been clearly discussed in the Murnion lecture.
Many, like Joe Gannon, underscore a problem with the US hierarchy, whose credibility continues to be tenuous.The recen tappointments of bishops in St. Louis and Saginaw, both of whom were scored in the Philadelphia Grand jury report, show that being a good loyal soldier , no matter how bad you’ve screwed up, is the order of the day.
We’ve rehashed a lot of this in terms of discussing obedience and authority. People, I think, I just not jumoing on bandwagons, but looking for uniters, not dividers.
“Muscular Christianity”, “Positive Orthodoxy” and the “Hermenutic of Continuity” do not seem to be making a large dent.
Thje USCCB’s last meeting proiduced virtually nothing in the way of uniting.
Drew Christiansen reported that the Delegate (Archbishop Sambi) scored the conferenc efor appearing too partisan in its approach to the President.
So when folks look at the scorecard in our divided Church, how much does the Weigel piece at this point have to offer?
I’m reminded of the much ado made of Archbishop Dolan’s appointment and installment as Archbishop of Manhattan. At the time, I was surprised to find little criticism of the whole process – the media seemed to highlight the “gratitude” of the people towards the Pope for appointing such a fine man. I don’t know much about Dolan, but I had to ask myself, “Is there not a good man in all of New York City (pop. 8 million) to serve as the head pastor of Manhattan?”
What sort of Christian community has its new leader show up in a cab (or limo) and need to ask, “Where’s the cathedral?” How many years, literally, will it take Dolan to acclimate and learn about the many, many, and very diverse Catholic communities in New York? especially after coming from two Midwestern dioceses.
Is this unique to America? Would the Pope appoint a Neopolitan bishop as the new bishop of Milan?
Here in Boston, it didn’t come up that our new bishop isn’t Bostonian/New Englander for the simple fact that he has an “O” in front of his last name. Yes, he was once the bishop of Fall River, Massachusetts, but that was the second of his four career posts: Bishop of St. Thomas (Virgin Islands), Fall River, MA, Palm Beach, Florida, and now Boston.
How is this not being a “branch manager”. Cardinal O’Malley is a likable, holy,, if unremarkable bishop, IMO. It’s been said that his appointments have been done in order to recover from scandals. The mob would call him a “cleaner”.
For what it’s worth, I think the dispute between ND and its critics such as Weigel is about the change in the way the church engages the world.
In my article “The Perfect Storm,” I argued that there have been two clear currents since Vatican II (the current of accommodation (1975-90), the current of identity (1990-2005), and an emerging current of engagement (2005 -).
Weigel seems to me to belong to current 2–which views current 3 with suspicion.
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4770
Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd,” the key word being “I,” not the pope or his fellow bishops.
Given the history of crap in the Church of Rome, I must refuse anybody’s invitation to become a “sheep.”
The church needs spiritual leaders who can delegate the administrative stuff to others, preferably laity. Unfortunately, too many locations are stuck with “suckups,” “careerists,” “organization men,” and the like who toed the line but were lucky enough (or clever enough?) to be seen by the powerbrokers in Rome and elsewhere.
JPII got his favorites elevated to the episcopacy, and now we’re all paying for it!!!
A sorry shame, to be sure.
There are constant statements about how “poorly catechized” today’s Catholics are. I am not quite sure what it means, but if it’s true, why doesn’t somebody do something about it?
Weigel wrote a piece on Caritas in Veritate that was so outlandisly biased in favor of his own politics that I don’t know why he should ever be listed to again. Check out M.J Andrews’On the Sheer Implausibility of George Weigel’s Story.
It is difficult to believe Weigel’s contention that Obama is plotting politically against American Catholicism, but the American Bishops are apolitical, which seems to me what he is claiming. How can it be claimed that bishops dictating how certain politicians are to be dealt with is not about politics?
‘four decades of ineffective catechesis compounded by the afterburn of the Long Lent ‘
Here is some help with Weigel meanings.. when he uses ‘four decades’ this is code for VatII was a failure. ‘the after burn of a long Lent’ is code for ‘poor church leaders had to pay 2 billion for cover-up of abuse’. I wonder what years, in the 2000 years of the Church does Weigel think there was an adequate understanding of catechesis… my guess is he has only the months between 1958 and 1963.. a five year ‘Golden Age’..
Here was the catechisis before Weigel was born. the story is about Al Smith in 1928 when reading a NYT op ed by a Protestent minister who opined that Smith would more likely follow a Papal encylical rather then the Constitution. Smith asked his staff ‘What in the hell is a papal encyclical?” None knew so they hired Fr Duffy of the Fighting 69th fame as a consultant.
Eric Bugyis: “Finally, it is true, as Catholic lay persons, it may be time for us to return some deference to those bishops who seek to live the call to be shepherds and admit that part of what we affirm as Catholics, as part of “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” is that we are primarily a people in need of shepherds.”
And who would those bishops be? Can you name names?
Margaret,
Unfortunately such bishops do seem in short supply. However, I’m not so cynical as to think there are no bishops who are pastorally sensitive and live their vocation to the shepherd’s staff with humility and love. As for naming names, most recently, I have known the Auxiliary Bishop of Hartford, CT, Peter Rosazza to be such a bishop, but he may be a rare breed.
Weigel is an incompetent commentator on current church history. He does not seem to know that since Vatican II, and especially since the response of Episcopal Conferences to Humanae Vitae, the Vatican have systematically undercut the authority of bishops in a whole series of interventions. The charter for this hatcheting of episcopal authority can be found in a book called Theologische Prinzipienlehre by Joseph Ratzinger. Massimo Faggioli has analyzed this.
Difficult to even know where to start on this subject.
- there have been many books written about the history (as cited above), current practices, and suggested reforms of the appointment of bishops;
- some of this seems to be intimately related to the curia and what needs to happen there
- “deference to bishops” – curious phrase that seems to carry a lot of weight, cynicism, etc. We are called as baptized to truth and justice – not deference to bishops; in fact, we are called to provide “my words” feedback that is well thought out and is not couched in negative ways…how many bishops really support that;
- anyone who is in business; has any experience with motivation, morale, basic psychology knows that “deference” is earned via truth, mutual respect, integrity, communication, sharing of power…not deference; not authoritarianism
- good topic but would suggest that using the ND experience only muddies the water – there you have the added issue of a catholic university and a local bishop….another layer in this overall issue
- IMHO, the on-going sex abuse scandal, the continued financial irregularities, the inability of the USCCB to coordinate on even small issues, the partisanship within the USCCB which says nothing about the larger US Catholic world, Rome’s continued (since 1980) emasculation of bishop conferences, synods, the concepts of subsididarity and collegiaty, litmus tests based on loyalty not pastoral abilities and living the gospel imperatives; inability or unwillingness to face serious issues such as the role of women; celibacy at the cost of loss of eucharist; a natural law interpretation that is 3 centuries old; refusal to engage the 21st century…..it leaves us with a cynical phrase for bishops – “morally bankrupt and ………….” from one of our hit movies.
Here are some examples of a bishop that is not driven by the ecclesiastical opinion polls – Dublin Archbishop’s recent comments:
“Diarmuid Martin, on the other hand, called the contents of the Ryan report “stomach-churning”, his usually rubicund, cheery face grey and furrowed, his eyes as haunted as though the children had been his own blood. It was a phrase a father would use.
Example from Clerical Whispers: Uniquely — or so it seems, from what we have experienced in Ireland in recent years as the forces of the right try to make us act against civil liberties — Archbishop Diarmuid Martin is also prepared to support rights which Canon Law condemns.
Civil unions per typical Irish bishops – it was absolutely bang-on for Catholic teaching: you can’t have any rights unless they fit under Roman Catholic Canon Law. Per Martin – “then announced quietly that other bishops “might have put the matter differently”.
But there was no rush to support him when he added, “I am aware of the need to protect the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships different to marriage.” Furthermore; “in relation to the Church’s credibility were its condemnation of gay couples, and suicide. They see through the superficial answers we give,” he said devastatingly.
A father of the Church accepting that Catholic answers are superficial? Per CW – “For myself, I can’t understand why this extraordinary, compassionate, moral, free-thinking man is sticking with his dishonoured, disgraced and morally bankrupt Church. He doesn’t belong there.”
(BTW – Bishop D’Arcy released his diocesan norms today on where the tabernacle should be placed in the church – it basically changes and overturns much of the liturgical principles and ecclessiology of Vatican II. He may be a gracious man but added example of someone moving in the wrong direction)
Name names; actually only one.
Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Australia, who courageously wrote, “Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus.”
When he spoke here last year, or was it the year before, our hearts were burning, literally. No one wanted the evening to end. He spoke powerfully, and so movingly about issues in the church. He left an indelible mark.
See his talk in CA at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Geoffrey+Robinson&emb=0#q=Bishop%20Geoffrey%20Robinson&emb=0; it is slightly different but essentially the same. His remarks on people’s responses to him on being made a bishop were on target. Listen to his description of playing golf…hilarious.
Meanwhile, Mahony et al were playing their games, trying to undermine his book tour. Let’s just say the contrast was stunning.
Funny thing about Weigel is that both in the case of the Encyc. and in this case his analyses are largely correct — he does see the tension between right and left in the Catholic Church correctly. But he is a zealot of the right and can see the left only as an evil sell-out. The extraordinary adroitness of Obama is what most comes across in Weigel’s piece. The 80 bishops who lambasted Fr Jenkins threw the ball in Obama’s direction, and Obama scored with it. Perhaps ecclesiastical hotheads will be more careful at challenging this brilliiant player the next time. Obama was able to rev up the enthusiasm of the Catholic left (which seems to include most ND students) as well as portraying himself and them as the heirs of the true Catholicism of Vatican II, Joseph Bernardin etc. All of this even though Obama is not a Catholic himself.
And part of Obama’s strategic superiority comes from his cool assessment of the real line-up of forces in US Catholicism. He can see that Weigel and the Vatican imposed rightwing bishops are just a noisy and beleagured minority. He has his finger on the pulse of Catholicism. He has shown how easy it is to topple the right wing castle of cards.
So, that makes two!
The odd thing is that President Obama gave a very effective catechesis on episcopal teaching when he spoke at ND:
“a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched hearts and minds.” My heart and mind were touched by him.”
The sheep know the voice of the Good Shepherd. Obama, not even Christian at that time, heard it in the voice of Cardinal Bernardin. How many people heard it in the voice of D’Arcy when he spoke about Obama’s appearance?
Would more catechesis help? Perhaps, but not if that catechesis teaches deference to the bishop, no matter what he says. Catechesis has to teach us to hear the voice of Christ, who loves us and gave himself for us. IMO, Obama speaking of Bernardin gave a more effective catechesis than anything I have ever read by Weigel. And that was because he echoed the catechesis he heard from Bernardin, who was unmistakably echoing the voice of the Good Shepherd.
Eric Bugyis:
I couldn’t agree with you more about Peter Rosazza. We had the good fortune to meet him here (in El Salvador) during the war years. At a ceremony at Sacred Heart University in Bridgeport, he had met Archbishop Romero’s successor, Arturo Rivera Damas, and decided to come here for a fairly long visit. He went all over the country, including into war zones. It was obvious he was a very good guy.
Still, and sadly, doesn’t your “exception” prove the rule? That is: having been named a bishop (by Paul VI, during Jean Jadot’s tenure) at the young age of 43, why is it that he was never named head of a diocese, but instead has been kept as an auxiliary for more than 30 years? Is that an accident, or a tragic reflection of the general pattern of who has, and who hasn’t, been given a chance to provide episcopal leadership in these recent decades?
“Catechesis has to teach us to hear the voice of Christ, who loves us and gave himself for us.”
Amen. This is what catechisis is. Not indoctrination which catehecesis is a euphemism for.
“Is that an accident, or a tragic reflection of the general pattern of who has, and who hasn’t, been given a chance to provide episcopal leadership in these recent decades?”
It is called the sclerosis of orthodoxy. For all that has been written about decline, we should have no doubt that the source is in Rome and the bishops appointed by Rome here.
Gene,
Sadly, yes, I fear it may. I heard an anecdote about Bishop Rosazza recently. Apparently, at a meeting where the American Bishops were preparing a statement on abortion in which they named it “the moral issue…,” Rosazza suggested the language be changed to “one of the moral issues along with poverty, war, etc…” His motion was not seconded and since he has been considered “soft on abortion,” which was described to me as “the kiss of death” for an American cleric who might hope to be promoted. This state of affairs is quite discouraging. Abortion is a serious moral issue, and I don’t think any clergy member wold say otherwise (including, of course, Rosazza), but the fact that it has become the only issue on which bishops in America are willing to be radical advocates for justice is severely damaging episcopal credibility.
For my money, I would have liked to see D’Arcy oppose “Obama at ND” because of his shady ties to Goldman Sachs or because the war isn’t over yet. And while we’re at it, it would have been nice if ND wouldn’t have given George W. Bush (or Reagan and Bush Sr.) a degree for similar economic and political reasons. Sometimes I fear that the single minded commitment to abortion at the cost of all other issues is going to sink the Church in America.
Bill says: “Catechesis has to teach us to hear the voice of Christ, who loves us and gave himself for us.”
Amen. This is what catechesis is. Not indoctrination which catechesis is a euphemism for.
Jean replies: I appreciate the differentiation you’re making, but that’s a fairly nebulous prescription for good catechesis.
I suspect that those who continue in the Church through confirmation or who return to the Church after an absence do so b/c of some catechetical tidbit that served as a kind of life ring. Perhaps, collectively, those tidbits point to the direction in which catechesis needs to go.
Or perhaps I’m entirely wrong; perhaps people return to the Church because “it’s what I grew up with, what I know.”
Might make an interesting thread, however anecdotal.
FWIW, Weigel appears regularly in the local diocesan paper. His rant about Scotland savoring its pagan past by putting up historical markers at the site of Norse raids was so outre that I haven’t been able to read him seriously for years. Certainly, no life rings there.
Does the University’s decision to invite Obama implicate a matter of “faith and morals”? If so, what does the following passage from Lumen Gentium say to the question of what deference is owed the Bishops?
“Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be respected by all as witnesses of divine and catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, should concur with their bishop’s judgment, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and adhere to it with a religious docility of spirit.” (Para. 27).
It seems we have to know what constitutes “matters of faith and morals” — does this include a Bishop’s comments about contraception and communion and not his judgments regarding a Catholic university’s commencement speakers? What, historically, constitutes “matters of faith and morals”?
“FWIW, Weigel appears regularly in the local diocesan paper. His rant about Scotland savoring its pagan past by putting up historical markers at the site of Norse raids was so outre that I haven’t been able to read him seriously for years. Certainly, no life rings there.”
Amen!
A few last thoughts of mine:
-Weigel should not be taken seriously, as many here have indicated!
-The Shepherd/sheep analogy neds to be thought of as about the love Christ had for those who sought Him, and the model of loving service His shepherds are called to.
-Teaching indicates respect should be given to those in authority.
As in many beauracracies, the boss must be respect to a degree, but his performance will show in day tro day activities how deep that goes. I’d suggest Bishop D”Arrcy and many others need to be like Smith-Barney in the old days -earn it.
-But that credibility isn’t there.
A while back,VOTF was casting about for “Bishops of Integrity”. Robinson, Gumbelton were thought of.
Most seen as company men.
-Quick footnote: Jason Berry has a piece on the legionairres investigation today (available at Abuse tracker.) Noteworthy is his link ohf Maciel to Cardinal Rode, who Maciel plied with gifts -the same Rode who ordered the “visitation” of our religious women)
What Bishop will stand up to Rome for them? Or on any other matter of substance?
If you speak up, as the Weakland memnoir indicates, you’re shot down there.
So lastly, we come to tnk of Frank McCourt, may he rest in peace. What would he think of this thread?
His obituary piece in the Hartford Courant noted that he noticed how Americans view their Catholicism as an inportant point of identity, as oposed to Europe, but that that identity was sliping away.
Of course, he’s probably tell it with a lot more humor than I.
Over and above the Notre Dame disagreement, I do think a valid point is made about the role of bishops to laity. More communication with the flock in the form of letters read at mass, letters incerted in bulletins, or more frequent visits to churches would grease the communication lines with the laity and lay groundwork for relationship, so that when a “problem” arises, the laity have a better understanding of where the bishop is coming from. Politics should be second while shepherding is primary.
Hi, Denise, my experience with bishops is that their life is a never-ending procession of parish visits, confirmations, meetings, appearances, liturgical presiding, etc. Someone once told me that bishops are well fed but have no close friends because of their peculiar on-the-go lifestyle.
I believe the holy order of the priesthood developed in the early church, at least in part, because the bishop could not personally be everywhere in his diocese all the time, so the pastors in a sense “stood in” for him. Of course, my observation of parish priests these days is that most of them are stretched pretty thin!
Bob Nunz mentioned that piece by Jason Berry on the investigation of the Legionaries and the Franc Rode connection, among other things. Here’s a link:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/italy/090717/vatican-investigates-legionaries-christ?page=0,0
I remember our local Catholic paper (THE RECORD in Louisville archdiocese) once having an ongoing Readers’ Letters feature that included often lively debate on issues facing the church — optional celibacy, artificial contraception, etc. Then, a number of years ago, I recall seeing this feature being reduced in size. Now there is no ongoing Letters feature. When a letter or two are printed (something that rarely occurs), they deal with mundane stuff but never, so far as I can tell, with controversial matters.
More recently, the archbishop has begun a cable TV program entitled “Conversations” as a means of outreach. He’s invited folks to submit possible topics for discussion. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a “Live Call-In” format with no (likely) pre-screening/filtering of questions?
I don’t see it happening.
So much for “listening” by this hierarch, apparently.
A diocesan newspaper has a way of changing its slant on things with the accession of a new Bishop, though sometimes it takes a while to get the full picture. Catholic New York this month featured a pull-out section on our new Archbishop’s “Pallium Pilgrimage” to Rome as well as full coverage of his many local public appearances. It’s not clear yet what editorial direction the paper will take, but if coming events cast their shadows before them, there might just be a food column. (The Pallium Pilgrims seem to have wined and dined exceptionally well, and we even got a full menu of one memorable meal.) And I regret to say, George Weigel’s syndicated column which turned up for the first time this month, featuring an insufferably condescending list of do’s and don’ts for Ambassador Diaz, is likely to become a standard feature.
Susan, I’m sad for you guys in New York – I guess that’s “muscular Christianity.”
Here in Santa Fe, we refer to our diocesan paper (among folks I know) as the “innocuous rag.”
Thank you to Susan Gannon for the link to Jason Berry’s article about Maciel and the visitors (visitators?) investigating the Legion of Christ.
The fact that two of the five cardinals/archbishops on the visitation team are longstanding strong supporters of Maciel compromises the whole venture. Maciel gave Rode an honorary degree from his university and invited him to ordain Legionaries. And all the luxuries (fancy dinners, limos, expensive gifts) do have an impact.
The thought that these “shepherds” will sit in judgment of what is by all measures a cult is nauseating. Further, the idea that fawning Legionaries can possibly escape censure and suppression is beyond belief. How willfully blind some can be.
Imagine the investigating hierarchy getting the same treatment that Ratzinger experienced. After serving table, and before Ratzinger left Legion dinners, seminarians would run around to the front entrance, line up along the driveway and applaud as he entered their car and was driven away. I fear the team will love all those submissive, clean cut young men serving them the finest.
My contempt is boundless. Jason, bless him, is still on the case, and those survivors with whom he works are inspiring, incredible men. I am in awe of all of them. Once again, get the movie Vows of Silence to see what I mean: http://www.vowsofsilencefilm.com They are the true heroes regardless of what Rome does or not.
B16 did not even have the courage or decency to render them justice when he simply slapped Maciel on the wrist, and never so much as mentioned Maciel’s victims or crimes in his decision.
Here is a wonderful article by Leon Podles on anger and bishops’ lack of it in the face of sin: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-06-012-v
“on anger and bishops’ lack of it in the face of sin’
If one asks why bishops show no anger when abuse evil was witnessed, and when offenders lied continuously to the face of superiors and even to the Popes, you must look to formation.
When all contact sports were forbidden in seminaries and golf and tennis were recommended instead. [Thank A/B Ireland who wanted to make gentleman out of inner-city ethnics]The results of suppressed emotions like anger and passion should not be suprising.
A priest friend, when he was a seminarian, had his contractor father pour a basketball court and backboard when the rector was away. It was removed. Of course he was suspended unitil a new rector was placed.
Ed – you must have attended a “wussy” seminary back East. We had plenty of sports – in fact, the “macho” spirit was a problem. Plenty of fights, arguments, cussing, cheating, etc. The biggest games of the year were Texas vs. Louisiana in football, baseball, and basketball – had a seminary split between students from these two states.
Another issue that Jim gets at is that the “system” creates the problem. In general, most catholics have become passive and indifferent…..as one of my favorite FBI pastors used to say: “you can’t fight city hall!” This system now has filtered down to priests/pastors – ambition, wanting the high dollar parish, the clerical and political diocesan infighting (worse than some Fortune 1000 companies). Except for the priests in 2002 in Boston and the Elephants in the Living Room group in Detroit, priests have remained passive themselves – it could be because of overwork, depression, morale, etc.
Here is an interesting article about how the system has trickled down: http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=1128
A few other points:
-thanks to Bill for his trickle down post. I think some veterans have tried to hang on, but must worry about retuirement and support, not how well they are serving
-the current NCR has an op-ed suggesting Bishops do a “year of penance’ as a way of putting the sex abuse crisis behind us. I don’t think that will do the job, but it points up how self importan tthe hieracrchy is perceived to be, as some have noted here.
-Finally, the notion of “one. holy, catholic and apostolic” as the identity peg for our Church seems somewhat circular and reinforcing of the kind of shepherd telling the good children to follow alon g that began this thread.
I keep thinking what makes a good shepherd is what is most Christlike.
Btw, I’d be remiss if I didn’t express my delight in seeing Jean Raber contributing. Woo hoo!!
Also, FWIW – back to the orignal topic … in my opinion, the public-relations battle was lost to the pro-life activists as soon as President Obama appeared on television screens, looking so resplendent in academic attire (the man knows how to wear clothes, or he has an excellent tailor). To my mind, that is the lasting image. Everything else about the day – the protests, the speeches – takes a back seat.
Let me add to the very short list of “good guys” the name of Bp. Kevin Dowling CssR of Rustenberg, S. Africa.
At least he made it to being an Ordinary. Now, however, with his stand on using condoms to help prevent the spread of AIDS, his next assignment will be, at best, Winnemucca, NV.
“Jean replies: I appreciate the differentiation you’re making, but that’s a fairly nebulous prescription for good catechesis.”
There is nothing wrong with catechesis if one keeps to priorities and doesn’t make the hierarchy more important than Jesus. The real value in catechesis is a living person imparting by example, the faith. A living example, explaining and teaching the gospel is invaluable. Nowadays it is right to life 24/7 resulting in the dearth of real cathechesis.
Here is another story on “our shepherds” – would you really pay deference to this bishop?
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/1678527,CST-NWS-abuse22.article
Regarding the dearth of real cathechesis: If you have two positions on Faith and Morals, and only one is grounded in The Truth, but you fail to reflect the Light of The Truth, you will end up with many “wandering” sheep. This is why the lie that claims we must respect positions that are not grounded in The Truth rather than Witness to The Truth, is part of the devil’s delusion from the beginning.
Nancy, are you saying that since so many sheep are wandering, the hierarchy “fails to reflect the Light of The Truth”?
That sounds so different from what you usually say.
We are all called to reflect the light of the Truth. The fact that dissent is allowed in our Church as well as our Catholic Universities and Colleges has led many astray while offending the Word of God. The University of Notre Dame, with the guidance of the local Bishop, and the contributions of her many Faithful Scholars, can be a beacon of Light if she remains grounded in The Truth to begin with.