“Crises are not to be feared”
In December, Timothy Radcliffe, OP, addressed the clergy of the diocese of Dublin, now reeling from the latest revelations of sexual abuse and duplicity among the hierarchy. “Child abuse is a terrible crisis for the Church,” he said. “But I am convinced that it is through crisis that we may grow closer to God. It is a crisis caused by our own failures as a Church, but God can make it a blessing.”
The Tablet published the text of the talk in two parts. The first section, “Our Burden to Be Shared,” appeared in the December 19/26 issue (and is available to subscribers online). In it Radcliffe spoke frankly about the sources of anger directed at the clergy and the Church by scandalized people, and the need for a humbler, “friendship”-based approach to authority and moral teaching.
What we have to say only makes sense in the context of friendship. If we want to speak on questions like abortion, or divorce and remarriage, or the gay issues, then we must be seen to be the friends of these people.
The second half of Radcliffe’s talk, “Towards a Humble Church,” was published in the January 2 Tablet and is free for all to read online. I found his reflections on how a crisis can bring about renewal especially inspiring:
Crises are not to be feared. It is through repeated crises that God drew closer to his people. Israel’s worst crisis was the destruction of the Temple and the monarchy, and exile to Babylon … Israel lost everything that gave her identity: her worship, her nationhood. Then she discovered God closer to her than ever before. God was present in the law, in their mouths and hearts, wherever they were, however far from Jerusalem. They lost God only to receive him more closely than they could have imagined.
Then that difficult cross-grained man, Jesus, turned up, breaking the beloved law, eating on the Sabbath, touching the unclean, hanging out with prostitutes. He seemed to smash all that they loved, the very way that God was present in their lives. But that was only because God wished to be present even more intimately, as one of us, with a human face. And at every Eucharist, we remember how we had to lose him on the Cross, but again only to receive him more closely, not as a man among us but as our very life.
At the heart of overcoming the crisis is the need to deal with the power/control issues in the Church.
Where are those ready to step up to the plate????
Good articles Mollie. Thanks for posting them. Very inspiring and hopeful.
When JP II was dying and the papabili were being discussed, I noted that Fr. Radcliffe’s name often came up as a very able man, a theologian of note and eloquent speaker, and, because he had travelled so extensively as head of the Dominican order, he was known throughout the world to some extent.. The only big drawback, it was said, was that he was too young (he was in his 50s then).
The best thing to me is that his Dublin speech pulls no punches and shows the kind of clerical courage that is so conspicuously lacking in the Church right now.
The leaders have to be humble. That is the whole point. Jesus commanded this by washing the feet of his disciples. The bishops have to stop the domination, the nastiness and truly become servants. Get out of their chanceries and mix in with their brothers and sisters. Not just go the houses of the rich.
It is elementary. It is the gospel.
As a Tablet subscriber, I was able to read both parts of Fr. Radcliffe’s talk the Clergy of the Dublin Archdiocese. He is on the mark! I especially appreciated his point about Jesus’ table fellowship: Jesus did not lay down pre-conditions for his acceptance of people, for his willingness to eat with them. It is in the context of an intimate relationship (friendship) expressed in table fellowship that Jesus teaches his friends how to life. We have a lot to learn, as a Church, from Jesus. Our leaders are too worried about pomp and circumstance and privilege. “It cannot be that way with you!” Jesus warned his disciples.
Is it too early to talk about hope, and good coming from evil? I fear that the church hasn’t worked through her contrtition and penance yet. We’ve seen the American bishops attempt revert to back-to-normal mode before everything was, in fact, back to normal.
Israel lost everything before realizing that God was still with them. I’m not certain that the church has hit bottom yet.
Look up the dictionary definition of crisis — it is a “decisive moment” or a “turning point” after a series of events or developments — whether for ill or good. The problem that Church has is that it does not want to change and so we have this incredibly protracted “crisis” with the hierarchy hoping and praying they can continue on as before once it blows over.
Fr. Radcliffe is a great gift to us and our whole Church.
Crises in the Church may lead to puritanical crackdowns, as in the Counter-Reformation (or indeed the Reformation itself as a reaction to the Renaissance papacy). Andre Leonard’s appointment as Primate of Belgium is the sort of response the Church is likely to make to crisis — a bold, confrontational contra mundum stance. Are we ready for this?
“Are we ready for this?” The Truth is a very powerful weapon, for only The Truth has the power to transform us. That being said, it is important to note, that Christ made it clear that we are to “Go, and sin no more”, which is consistent with “Love one another as I have Loved you.”.
Wonderful Scripture-based analysis.
First, he points to the root cause as a “culture of control and power” in the church. (Not the celibacy requirement.) That sounds correct to me.
Second, he doesn’t propose any concrete solution other than by pointing out that vetting candidates to the priesthood and setting up child-safety procedures is not sufficient. That also sounds true. Hopefully Pope Benedict will propose concrete solutions in his pastoral letter.
Third, he is trying to give hope to those who are getting discouraged by the never-ending stream of scandals. Things will get better. They really will! His perspective is novel and quite inspiring.
Claire
“Hopefully Pope Benedict will propose concrete solutions in his pastoral letter.”
I think the operative word here is “hopefully”.
I’d like his letter to discuss, not the question: “how come priests go astray, and what can we do about it?” but the question: “how come bishops go astray, and what can we do about it?”
Claire
The kindly answer to the question you pose is that bishops cover up the misdeeds of various functionaries who work for them because they believe that it is in the best interest of the “church” that they do so. Be the underlying attitude what it may, the that attitude has not been unknown in Rome. John Paul’s handling of the Maciel case, to which Benedict was certainly privy, illustrates the point very clearly. If Benedict wants to do something good and practical, he might instruct all Vatican officials to cooperate with legitimate inquiries about criminal activities made by the Irish government or other governments.
Stopping bishops going astray and getting transparency in church dealings with civil law may still only be the tip of the iceberg of reform that is called for. Benedict is incapable of thinking that far — indeed his whole career has been based on forbidding himself and others from thinking that far and on emasculating that aspect of Vatican II.
In the Christmas double issue of the Tablet Radcliffe’s speech to the clergy of Dublin began this way:
“Child abuse is a terrible crisis for the Church, not just in Ireland, but in Britain, America and Australia. But I am convinced that it is through crisis that we may grow closer to God, It is a crisis caused by our own failure as a Church, but God can make it a blessing, if we live it in faith and grasp the moment.”
A blessing? the child abuse crisis? Where on earth could he go from there? Well, he sympathizes at great length with the sufferings of the clergy of Dublin who feel so weighed down with the burden of the scandal of abuse. His solution for them? Stop pretending to be righteous, as that, too, is such a burden for them.
He notes in passing the many heavy burdens the Church has laid on the faithful, denying women with large families the right to use contraception, to tell young people who can’t afford to marry that their sexual behavior mucst be strictly controlled, and gay people that nothing is permitted–and that they should be ashamed of their sexuality.”
But don’t think Radcliffe is coming out in favor of actually lifting any of those burdens. Far from it. He goes on to slip in an artful escape hatch: “Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Church teaching, this has been experienced by our people as a heavy burden.” (No need to re-examine the morality of any of these teachings. The people just “experienced” them as unbearable.)
Finally he ends by recommending to the clergy of Dublin that, like the Jesus who dined with sinners, they really need to be perceived as friends by the faithful: “If we want to speak on questions like abortion, or divorce and remarriage, or the gay issue, then we must be seen to be the friends of these people.”
But surely “these people” need more from the clergy than the kind of friendliness that would refrain from examining the “rights or wrongs” of Church teachings they find morally burdensome?
The scandal, the exposure that is, is the blessing. Just as the fact that the Irish people have lost their trust in the church is a blessing. Without the Irish to defend them, the bishops will have to be good examples or lose all effectiveness whatsoever.
Hey, wouldn’t it be great if Commonweal persuaded Fr. Radcliffe to expound on some of these issues?
Susan, if Fr. Radcliffe said that there is nothing wrong with, say, gay couples, he would immediately lose half of his audience. If he said they were intrinsically disordered, he would lose the other half. Instead, he is careful to keep his cards close to his chest, and walks a fine line that keeps people engaged and listening.
If he gets people to be friends with the ones who suffer from the burdens he mentions, then their rigid opinions will melt in contact with the humanity they encounter; either that, or their new friends will hear them with renewed goodwill, because they’re friends.
In the current atmosphere of sharp divisions, he won’t convince people simply by stating his opinion. That’s pointless and divisive. Instead, he encourages people to be friends across divisions on moral questions, and then trusts the Holy Spirit to do the rest.
A mere rhetorical advantage is hardly worth harming real people. If you are willing to entertain the possibility that “these people” have real rights that have been abrogated by misguided church policies, ‘convincing people” they might be wrong would hardly be moral. I think, for example of my aunt, back in the day, whose periods were irregular, and who thwerefore could not use the rhythm method of contraception as it was then understood. Thanks to the Church, she had five children and several miscarriages. And a series of post-partum breakdowns, against which she was warned by her doctors.
It is reported that the Pope’s pastoral letter to the Irish faithful will call for more lay participation in church governance, without specifying what concrete steps are to be taken.
Alas, this comes far, far too late. Parish Councils remained a dead letter in Ireland; proposals for a national synod never came to anything; lay groups like Pobal were regarded with fear and suspicion by the bishops.
The fresh reserves of energy and enthusiasm that once abounded are no longer there to be called on.
Susan Gannon is right; Radcliffe is skating on thin ice, using charm to humor the faithful, easing them into a more accepting mode toward gays. He is the Dupanloup of our time, skilled in telling us what the Vatican “really” means by its rigid proclamations, and to some extent the church authorities are grateful to him for providing them with an acceptable face.
I found an answer to my question about bishops going astray, in the blog post about Guantanamo, that links to http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368 where an admiral is quoted as saying: “If the heart of the military is obeying orders down the chain of command, then its soul is accountability up the chain. You can’t demand the former without the latter.”
If the heart of the church structure is obeying down the hierarchical chain, then its soul is accountability up the chain. You can’t demand the former without the latter. Obedience to bishops goes hand in hand with accountability. If our pope wants the bishops of Ireland to regain any kind of authority, he needs to set up a way to make them accountable.
Bishops in Ireland — for example Dublin Archbishops McNamara and Connell (both close friends of Ratzinger) — are appointed on the basis of extreme doctrinal orthodoxy and the appointment process is in no way accountable to the people of their dioceses.
Susan Gannon is right!
Cathy’s article on mental reservations in the new Commonweal is instructive: the context of complex moral issues can be vital.
So Radcliffe rightly points out that power and control is the base issue, but doen’t want to deal with the subsets of that issue:
-clericalism and its reinforcement in mandatory ceibacy
-creeping magisterialism and arguning freom a mantra of “Truth” to cover almost everything hierrchical
-emphasizing a “hermeneutic of continuity” while really supporting a hermenutic of curial/Roman/European centered support.
The outcome in Ireland will undountedly bring many pious words about humility and service -I fear the practical outcomes wil be negligible.
Bob –
Which other conspicuous cleric besides Archbishop Robinson of Australia has said publicly and explicitly that the Church’s crisis is ultimately about power and control? I can’t help but think that that Fr. Radcliffe showed a lot of courage. The specifics can come later, but I expect they won’t unless he gets public support from other priests. (i rhink the Church reform ball is in rhe lower clergy’s court now.) And who knows, maybe others will speak out, maybe even a few bishops. One must hope or all is lost.
It seems unrealistic, and maybe unfair, to me to expect Radcliffe’s address to offer a comprehensive framework for fixing the problems with the Irish hierarchy or to advocate for changes in moral teaching. It was a pep talk for demoralized priests, essentially, and as such I think it was admirably challenging and thoughtful. For him to suggest that the way through this crisis for priests is to work harder to empathize and walk in step with the people they serve seems both sound and rather original. I recommended it here not because I think it offers a formal outline for future reforms — it doesn’t — but because I think it’s insightful. And the section I quoted above has a broader application than the sex-abuse scandal and what the pope ought to do about it.
Yes, it is inspiring, but in the context of the sex abuse scandal in Ireland it is vastly insufficient. A change of attitude is good, but that’s not enough. It has to translate into visible actions. Priests could do things as simple as putting a copy of their vita in the parish bulletin (for the sake of increased transparency, humbly recognizing that, even if they have done nothing wrong, their people have good reasons to want to check on their vita). They could take steps for public atonement in the name of the church, each in their own way. They could review the rules for the protection of children in their parish. If parishioners have lost respect for the contemporary church to the point where they’re not willing to hear them preach, they could acknowledge that and, as a gesture of humility, read homilies from the Church Fathers instead. Note that none of those initiatives require input from the hierarchy nor even support from their parishioners, and it seems to me that they would help fight low morale.
See Jimmy Mac’s last entry in the thread immediately below.
Yes, Bob. Jimmy’s archives turned up an apposite bit from Carolyn Disco on the “power in control” that has so troubled the relationship between clergy and faithful. And it does have a bearing on Radcliffe’s message.
When Radcliffe tells the priests of Dublin to exercise power in the Church humbly, like “ the vast majority of priests and bishops” whom he has met who “are simple and unpretentious people who just want to serve the people of God” but who have a hard time doing so “ in the teeth of a clerical culture common to all Christian denominations, which stresses rank and power.”
Aside from his curious claim that this misuse of clerical power is rooted in secularism, and his unconvincing picture of humble clergy being forced by cultural norms to behave arrogantly, his suggestion that a friendly and humble way of exercising power might be an improvement is certainly appealing. But what troubles me in his advice to priests is his suggestion that they adopt the role of Christ toward the sinners and unclean– whom he treated with gracious generosity while holding them uncompromisingly to a higher standard of morality–as a tool to control the faithful. He urges priests to “seem” like friends, the better to convince the presumably unclean and sinful faithful to accept, “regardless of the rights or wrongs of church teaching,” the undeniably heavy burdens these teachings lay on, for example, married couples forbidden to use contraception or gays told to be ashamed of their sexuality.
It’s the old power game “with a human face.” The iron fist in a red velvet glove.
Sorry, after midnight typing. Paragraph 2 above should begin “Radcliffe” not “When.”
I do not have access to the first article, but I think you’re reading this in the worst possible light and in a spirit of distrust. I can think of other ways. But ultimately it does not matter what we think those words might mean: at this point only concrete actions matter, and we’re waiting on that.
Nicholas Lash has a touching piece on Cardinal Newman (as a doctor of the Church to be?) over at America on line.
The piece underscores the power control issues being talked about here. It’s not that Radcliffe is seen in the worst light. It is true that there is distrust but I think institutional distrust and the problem is if the issue is institutional power and control, and does his insight really help if he’s butressing the institution.
The question, I’d submit, is critical. Just saw a piece from Canada how young Catholics there are abandoning the religious instition (and political ones too.)
The use of power to maintain control will continue to have the opposite effect in today’s world if the institution does not move forward instead of backward.
I fear Ireland’s Church is on the precipice if not already over.