More on Benedict, Abuse
Tim Rutton at the LA Times chimes in, noting that Benedict’s tough talk to the Irish bishops, if applied closer to home, well….
A couple points:
1. The core of the really corrosive moral problem is the cover-up by bishops and, perhaps, the Vatican. Positions that offer access to vulnerable people will draw those who want to victimize them. Simple as that. The question is what you do with them. When the scandal broke in MA, someone from another, much smaller, denomination (I’m sorry I forget which,) was asked “Do you have pedophiles among your ministers?” The response was “Yes, two–they’re in jail.” Only now, with the resignation of one Irish bishop, are we beginning to see anything like real accountability. (Or will that Irish bishop also get a comfy sinecure in Rome like Cardinal Law did? Remember, most or all of Cardinal Law’s enforcers were promoted to their own dioceses.)
2. Andrew Sullivan draws an indirect connection to celibacy as a part of the problem, arguing from a psychological stance. But this is a matter of the priestly culture, afflicting the group, not just the individual.
But these indicate the need for a systemic approach to a systemic problem. I think it would involve real reform of the power structure, maiking it less unidirectionally top-down.
I think it would involve re-thinking our theology of ordination from one of ontological change, construed as elevation of the priest above the status of mere mortals, to one of functionality, wherein a priest is a person who does what a priest does, not a special, more Christ-like person.
What else would need to change?
I’m not talking procedural change here, (things like better screening of seminarians, windows in doors where priests are alone with people,) but structural, institutional change. People are calling for accountability, and structural change seems to be the key. So….what’s needed?
There is not the slightest intention in Rome to make structural, institutional changes. The contrast between the Vatican and the Gospel is astronomical. Peter and the other disciples worked together and Paul even made Peter change some things. They had their difficulties but Peter did not sit on some deep distant throne while addressing the others. In the last two centuries Rome has gotten more monarchichal than it was before that with the pope appointing bishops in other countries. The only time Rome relented was when governments objected. A shame. Rome should accede to its own people in choosing bishops not the military of governments. But when we talk about change the first conversation should be that after we agree on what should be done, how will we do it. Because Rome has no intention of changing.
As far as celibacy is concerned the real problem is mediocrity in the clergy. Most seminarians start their training with great inspiration. In formation their ideals and aspirations are systematically stripped down with the emphasis on a sterile obedience and loyalty. So that by the time the seminarian is ordained he has learned to obey but has lost most of his spirit. Certainly there has to be discernment and training. But too often it consists of obedience to a superior or bishop without resspect to that person’s doing the right thing or not. While the gospels repeated stress the service of the leaders to the others the reality is the leaders dominate and are allowed to be nasty because they have some divine infusion as it were.
@ Lisa Fullam: Do you know Vatican II?
“Wherefore the priesthood, while indeed it presupposes the sacraments of Christian initiation, is conferred by that special sacrament; through it priests, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are signed with a special character and are conformed to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head.” (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2)
Even if new norms of sexual abuse by children, like the Dallas charter in the US, all but guarantee that there will be no systemic abuse in the future, that will not be enough since the trust between the church hierarchy and the faithful is now broken.
As a target of sexual misconduct myself a few years ago, I remember thinking, stunned, “Impossible. This cannot be happening!”, at the very moment when a priest was starting unambiguously sexual moves. Advised by a priest friend, I filed a report promptly, and the offending priest was immediately removed from ministry. But that incident has revolutionized my view of the clergy. I no longer see them sort of like members of an extended family. Instead, a priest, just like anybody else, now has to earn my trust from my getting to know him and seeing how he is as an individual. And, perhaps, it is better this way…
I would submit that the events in the US, and Ireland and, now, all over the place including Pope Benedict’s former diocese, have similarly irretrievably destroyed people’s blind basic trust in the church hierarchy. Even if new norms prevent a repetition of the past, that will not undo the fact that they got it spectacularly wrong and that our trust was misplaced. We will not trust the church hierarchy again unless it changes and becomes fundamentally different.
In the meantime some individual priests can still earn and enjoy the trust of their congregation, and evangelize locally. And presumably some individual bishops can stil earn and enjoy the trust of their priests and of their diocesan faithful, and evangelize locally. As I see it, that’s how we can survive while we mull over the fundamental renewal that must happen.
In today’s NYTimes, the Vatican attempts to excuse Benedict when he was Archbishop saying he stressed doctrine over behavior. This is a terrible example. Imagine Jesus questioning the theology of the Cananite women, or the Centurian who wanted his child cured? Councils and popes are not infallible. The ontology of the priesthood is truly problematic. How easy the transition to saying that the priest is acting “in the person of Christ” when he abuses someone. In fact some victims found it hard to object thinking this might be divinely ordained. Andrew Greeley played it straight long before we cured ourselves of excessive veneration: “….. many of the current leaders of the institutional
church are corrupt thugs, from the parish right up to the Vatican.” Greeley wrote that when most practically thought it was at least a venial sin to think this way.
No question the ontology of the description of priesthood needs to have a hard look.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/world/europe/28church.html?hpw
I just read the piece by Frank Bruni in the NYT and it comes close, but in my opinion misses the target. To put it simply, it is not the church protecting itself from outside interference and secular (civil) justice that is the problem; rather it is the church clerical protecting the clergy from outside interference and civil or secular justice. In a word, it is our old friend clericalism that is the problem, and Benedict is a clericalist of the purest water. I readily grant that there are hostile laicists out there, but are clericalism and laicism not two sides of the same coin?
Much of sacramental thinking has created metaphysical constructs (like the bond of marriage) to reinforce a Church view.
So I agree with Bill M. on the clericalism issue!
The continuing number of threads on the abuse/Vatican issue and enourmous amount of news coverage indicate there is a “crisis” as Allen said on NPR yesterdaday.
That said, The NYT op-ed cover a range of views – a “best face” from Allen(what else?) while (having to) admitting there’s a problem.
A puff piece by Dowd (will there be fulminations from the Abp. at Madison Ave.?) that expresses the anger many women feel at the male clericalism and unconcern for children vis a vis the institution.
I thought the Bruni piece (mentioned and linked in the Maciel discussion below) was insightful that the Church tends to be reactive and that it’s major players (JPII and BXVI) in recent times are defensive against a world they knew.
It also explains the reactiveness of BXVI to engaging much of modernity and his “continuing” of VII – a continuation that contuinues to be less and less plausible.
So again I think Bill is right -and BXVI’s sermn today highlights it-he’ll dig in his heels as will
the supoorters of loyalty to the institution as opposed to what really affects people in the world.
This is not to say that BXVI isn’t hurt by what happened -it’s a big sin, but is it a crime?And do the men he chose for loyalty to buttress his institution really insight that?
Making the rounds on the internet today was a piece on “how would a bishop today go to confession?”
Well, the question might be posed to Benedict as to himself and his responsibility and what his penance really ought to be?
Some might yell for resignation, but stop resisting change and deal with the culture that let and probably continues to let these messes happen would be very much germane.
There need to be some structural reforms of church polity, as have long been advocated by some of the Pope’s long ago comrades, Hans Kung and Len Swidler (e.g. a constitution and democratization).
To the extent that any institution will retain some essential hierarchical structure, especially where a Teaching Office is concerned, any top-down features should be mostly characterized by intelligence-gathering and intelligence-dissemination organs, gathering info from the sense of the faithful here and then sharing that info with the faithful elsewhere in what would be a robustly bottom-up process, with special types of deference paid to the lived experiences of the faithful and also to the learning experience of the theologians. Presently, the magisterium seems to be ex-communicated, out of touch, with the sensus fidelium. Rather than actively listening to the faithful, interpreting its needs and advocating its legitimate concerns, it has been talking at the faithful and sharing an output that has not derived from collegial, consultative processes. Rather, what we hear has come from an isolated and insular ivory tower of bureaucrats who only confer with one another in an nonvirtuous incestuous cycle of self-reinforcement and self-perpetuation. And they still employ an old sterile, scholastic metaphysics that is so filled with heavenly abstractions that they are of no earthly use to the faithful in their concrete lived experiences. Put simply, they are supposed to be listening to and observing US as the Spirit is at work and then telling all what the Spirit has been up to in the Church. The normative force of their teaching charism derives from its intimate familiarity with the Spirit at work in the world and not from … from … um … where in the heck do they come up with some of this stuff? We are looking at what Scott Peck called the “preservation of a sick identity structure” in his book, The People of the Lie. So, more concretely, we perhaps could use, just for one example, many more commissions such as, let me think — oh, I know — the Papal Birth Control Commission.
First to Anonymous (sturm781@web.de which is still anonymous so why not use it so at least it distinguishes you—web.de is a free e-mail service in Germany -at least it is not Russia-don’t get me going on that issue)
Anyway…Vatican II is irrelevant to this issue. The issue is Bill M & Bob N agree is clerical issue and Vatican II didn’t change that.
Lisa asks a good question which hasn’t been answered.
A couple immediate things that come to mind and they have to do with undoing the clerical mind set irrespective of Vatican II
a) there has to be a radical rethinking of the training of priests. It needs to start with being a post graduate studies program which delays entry of any underage boys and (preferably girls) and raises the qualifications of those entering the place.
Then the courses have to change to teach administration and secular law and how to respect and handle difficult situations not just hide them. Not that I really have much clue as to what they actually teach in such an institution but clearly it is not at all how to administer a diocese in this era.
b) the state must make it mandatory for bishops to report all claims of sexual abuse to the secular authorities
c) the bishops and the Church must approve of such a law and must set up there own quasi-judicial system in which all members of the clergy including bishops and cardinals irrespective of sex must belong and through which a complaint about a clergy person’s behaviour be independently reported and then judged by his/her peers in much the same fashion as Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses and Teachers and other professions. Its not perfect but it goes a long way to creating transparency. I would include the publishing of all cases brought before such a body. Such a body would have lay people on their board of governors and would have the authority to defrock priests/bishops/cardinals.
d) Bishops have to establish lay over site boards at both the diocesan level and at the parish level with the authority to remove the priest or bishop for mismanagement of funds and just plain incompetence has has been demonstrated in the handling of sexual abuse.
In other words there has to be a recognition that this is about operating the institution as a human institution not about mixing the spiritual church with the frailty of the human organization.
What else would need to change?
I was struck by the darkness of today’s readings. So much evil! Yet so familiar. Judas is like the priests who committed sexual abuse. Peter in his denial is like clericalist bishops enabling abusers; and like Fr Lombardi hypocritically bending the truth in the misguided belief that he is thus protecting his institution; and like Monsignor Scicluna pretending that secrecy protects the victims. Pilate is like Cardinal Brady at first when he said that “under the procedures then mandated by the church, it had not been his responsibility to inform the police” in 1975; or like Pope Benedict writing to his brother bishops, teling them primarily to conform to canon law. The mocking Roman soldiers and the jeering crowds are like some newsmedia relishing their unsavory discoveries. The fearful disciples, scattered and in hiding, are the people who have left the Catholic church over these scandals. Meanwhile the Church as a whole – the Body of Christ – is suffering.
In today’s Gospel, a yet-to-be-realized promise lies in Peter’s bitter weeping, and a glimmer of hope comes from the repentant criminal on the cross. But, in the present time, who can be cast in the role of the repentant criminal, and who will play the role of the bitterly weeping Peter? Certainly not the man who wrote: “I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness.”
Great program, John B., outlining how the institution could function even without blind trust.
If I could change the church, I’d follow some of the ways the Epicopal Church has gone – married men and women ordained, bishops elected not appointed, a presiding bishop who serves a limited term, a governing body that includes layity, etc.
Sorry for all the above typos
This from a report in the Toronto Star http://bit.ly/9E0iul
In Geneva, Swiss President Doris Leuthard called for a central register of pedophile priests to prevent them from having further contact with children.
Which contrasts sharply with the focus of the article:
Pope won’t be intimidated by ‘petty gossip’
Which just goes to show us all the extent to which the clergy up to the highest rung do not get it. They simply have to change, be forced by the state to change or resign or maybe a combination of all three.
I can’t ever remember when I have been so disgusted.
Claire did a great job of relating today’s gospel but I was struck with this line from the first reading: (Isa 50 4-7)
The servant of the Lord said:
“The Lord God has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a word.
Morning by morning he awakens– wakens my ear to listen as those who are taught.
Would those in the Vatican could listen to the clamour and not respond as if society were little more than “petty gossip”.
The verse goes on:
The Lord has opened my ear,
and I was not rebellious,
I did not turn backward.
Well the Vatican’s response is a closed ear, and claiming The pontiff said faith in God helps lead one “towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion.”
He also spoke of how man can sometimes “fall to the lowest, vulgar levels” and “sink into the swamp of sin and dishonesty.”is clearly taking a rebellious stance as well as falling back on old ways.
Sorry my attempt at using quote code didn’t work.
If I could change the church . . . then the Church would no longer be the Church, but would be something else — something that I created, rather than what Jesus created.
Of course, I am always free to go and create my own, do things the way I like it, the way I think things ought to be done. Then I would have everything exactly the way that I want.
The only thing I wouldn’t have is being able to take away the Church, as she is, from those who love her the way she is and has been.
Bender,
I am not really sure it is correct to say Jesus created the Church. but accepting that as a given, are you saying that inherent in the Church Jesus created was the way the Pope and the bishops handled sex abuse by priests? And that had it been handled differently, those who loved the Church would not have loved it? When John Paul II apologized for Catholic anti-Semitism, was that an implied criticism of the Church Jesus created?
Putting it another way, suppose Benedict XVI were asked, “Looking back over your years as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and pope, is there anything you would do differently if you had it all to do over again?” Do you think Benedict would answer, “Oh, I wouldn’t change a thing! What about all the people who loved the Church as it is and was?”
Claire –
I was propositioned by a priest many years ago. He’s a bishop now.
Bender, Are you saying the spiritual aspect of the Church which is what Jesus founded can not be separated from the “institutional” Church which has evolved over the Centuries as a man-made construct in response to developing needs and social systems with which people found themselves.
That is certainly what the clergy at all levels have tried to teach us to believe and accept and that we now know is only so much hooey. That is what Vatican II taught us and nothing can put that genie back in the bottle. Not even us old guys dying off, not nothin’
If as I suspect you are one of the “Young Fogies” to use Fr. Greeley’s term (BTW does anyone know how he is doing) and you persist in not reforming the institution then the rump cult will be what you create and that is not IMHO what Jesus created.
Maureen Dowd writes a slam bang column sending Benedict back to Baveria. John Allen writes an op ed with the on-one-hand and then on-the-other-hand approach, with a lot of emphasis on the compexity/history of the problem, ending the op ed with a we shall see.
The reality is that Slam-bang is what the vast majority will hear and see; Slam-bang will carry the day in the popular opinion. The only question is how much slam-bang can the Vatican walls take… that is what we all will wait and see’
Here is the section of Pope Benedict’s Palm Sunday sermon in which some say they can discern a reference to the contemporary crisis. I don’t myself see it
“Jericho, where the last part of Jesus’ pilgrimage began, is 250 meters below sea level, while Jerusalem, the goal of his journey, is some 740 to 780 meters above sea level: an ascent of about 1,000 meters. But this outer way is above all an image of the inner movement of existence that is undertaken by following Christ, which is an ascent towards the heights of being human. A person can choose a comfortable way and dodge all effort. He can also descend toward the base, the vulgar. He can sink in the swamp of lies and dishonesty. Jesus, however, walks ahead of us, and he is going up. He is leading us to what is great, pure; he is leading us toward the healthy air on the heights: toward the life that is in accord with the truth, toward the courage that won’t be intimidated by the chattering [chiacchierio] of dominant views, toward the patience that supports and stands by others. He is leading us toward availability to the suffering, to those abandoned, toward the faithfulness that takes the part of others even when situations become difficult. He is leading us toward readiness to help, toward the goodness that won’t give up even in the face of ingratitude. He is leading us toward love–he is leading us toward God.”
This is an early section of a rather lengthy sermon.
I would agree with Fr. Komonchak that the passage from the Palm Sunday sermon does not contain a direct reference to the contemporary crisis that has so badly betrayed the Church.
On the other hand, we can hope that the world’s various episcopacies, including that of Rome, will take to heart his warning to be honest. “A person can choose a comfortable way and dodge all effort. He can also descend toward the base, the vulgar. He can sink in the swamp of lies and dishonesty.”
If the cock had to crow thrice for Peter to face the truth, how many cockcrows will it take for the successors of Peter and the apostles to do the same? At the moment, there would seem to be little evidence that they have done so.
Nicholas,
I’ll say an “Amen” to that.
I could certainly agree to the changes that John Borst carefully outlined in his first blog under this topic.
I remember once reading that the Pope once commented that he did not read any of the criticisms that are written of Church issues. I would think that this also included criticisms of
the hierarchy’s handling of the sexual abuses that occured “on their watch.”
I don’t believe that the criticisms are ‘petty gossip’ as the Pope labeled them (if he was referring to today’s problems—not the schemes that were planned by Jesus’ enemies).
And if, as Nicholas Clifford suggested, the cock had to crow three times for Peter to come to his senses—-we had better make a loud recording of a cock crowing several times and play it moring, noon and night in St. Peter’s square—right by the Pope’s windows—-so he can hear it—maybe something will finally sink in.
Structural change sounds pretty radical to me. It seems to me we’ve leaped too quickly to solutions here. Could I request a concise statement of the problem that you’re trying to solve?
Jim’s post sounds like his boss, the cardinal, respondin ga long time ago to VOTF and its goal of changing the Church.
I’m not sure why structural change sounds “radical” to him given how things continue to spin out of control.
Clearly there needs to be greater lay iuncvolvement in leadrship, more leadership roles for women, and a break withj the curial mentality (disbanding the current curia would no tbe a bad idea).
In the long run, we might see a sea change but the current implosion is one way of getting there while hanging on to a past that resists change in any form.
Bob, with all respect, your perception that “things continue to spin out of control” doesn’t persuade me that we need to restructure the church. The recipe to address those “things” would be something along the lines of, ‘try harder to bring things under control.’ E.g. audits, studies and the rest of the remedies of the Dallas Charter, which works within the framework of the current structure.
Alas, the difference is Peter repented when the cock crowed. The monarchichal church blames others. And we could show this quite clearly, historically. And whenever there is adulation for others we enable the peacocks in Rome to strut on in their flowing red garments. When a man knelt down before Peter he said: “”Stand up; I too am just a man.”
But the cardinals and bishops regale in having people kiss their ring and bow before them. How can someone account to you who insists that you kneel and kiss his hand or his ring?
Bill Mazzella wrote the above.
(Bill – are you one of the “Anonymous’s” in that other thread, where there are at least two different ones commenting?)
How would one restructure the church? How about a little honest soul-searching on the part of those who aspire (maybe even lust?) for positions of leadership power:
“A calling links a person to the larger community, a whole in which the calling of each is a contribution to the good of all. On the contrary, a career is measured by personal success and a sense of power; it is not concerned with public responsibility. The professions have taken on the guise of a career and should return to the original notion of serving the larger society.”
“Habits of the Heart” quoted by Thomas F. McMahon CSV’s article, Religion and Business, in “Chicago Studies”, April 1989.
Sorry, but according to the Gospels Peter made three denials after which the cock crowed. Mark alone says “for the second time”.
Jim Pauwels wrote: “Structural change sounds pretty radical to me.[...] Could I request a concise statement of the problem that you’re trying to solve?”
To repeat myself: The events in the US, in Ireland and, now, all over the place including Pope Benedict’s former diocese, have irretrievably destroyed people’s blind basic trust in the church hierarchy. Even if new norms prevent a repetition of the past, that will not undo the fact that they got it spectacularly wrong and that our trust was misplaced. We will not trust the church hierarchy again unless it becomes fundamentally different.
John Borst’s first post’s suggestions have many advantages. They propose a model for management in the absence of blind trust. They are exactly to the point. They are possibly a basis for common agreement because:
- they do not require justice, repentance, uncovering the cover-ups, shaming offenders of the past: that sensitive topic can be dealt with independently with more or less frenzy.
- in their basic form, they do not question celibacy, ordination of women, or any doctrinal question. They leave untouched the authority of church clergy on all such questions. They are purely about management.
- yet they are structural because they would work towards fighting clericalism.
What do you not like about them?
I do not find reference to the scandal in what Fr. K quotes, but in this part of Benedict’s statement:
Addressing crowds in St Peter’s square during a Palm Sunday service, the pope did not directly mention the scandal spreading though Europe and engulfing the Vatican, but alluded to it during his sermon. Faith in God, he said, led “towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion”.
Petty gossip it is not. A most unfortunate comment.
Culture is at the heart of it all.
A culture endures because it is successful.
How do we define or describe success?
For whom is the culture successful?
As social/organizational psychologist Ed Schein has noted, a culture has three levels:
+ the artifacts, i.e., what we experience
+ the espoused values
+ the underlying assumptions
History and psychology would be helpful in examining the culture.
As the expression “petty gossip” broke into the on-line news on Palm Sunday, it showed up first in British newspapers (Tom Kington in the Guardian) and the Toronto Star, as referenced by John Borst. It also showed up on all sorts of blogs. I found difficulty in determining the language of the original spoken text. Of all places, a video clip from Al Jazeera told me that the Pope was using Italian, and Al Jazeera added an English voice-over. The text is:
Gesù cammina avanti a noi, e va verso l’alto. Egli ci conduce verso ciò che è grande, puro, ci conduce verso l’aria salubre delle altezze: verso la vita secondo verità; verso il coraggio che non si lascia intimidire dal chiacchiericcio delle opinioni dominanti; verso la pazienza che sopporta e sostiene l’altro.
—-
Nowhere do I see that the “chiacchiericcio” concerns Ratzinger’s lapse in Munich or the Murphy case. Nor do the sentences say that he will not be intimidated by specific accusations. For me, the idle gossip of predominant opinion seems the crazy amount of ink wasted on the affairs of golfers, singers and politicians, who’s breaking up from whom, etc. Tabloid headlines. I may think that some bishops and His Holiness have deserved some headlines, but to claim that the Pope’s Palm Sunday sermon was labeling those accounts “petty gossip” is not substantiated by the sentence, although some news writers immediately made that connection.
Joe McMahon
“To repeat myself: The events in the US, in Ireland and, now, all over the place including Pope Benedict’s former diocese, have irretrievably destroyed people’s blind basic trust in the church hierarchy. Even if new norms prevent a repetition of the past, that will not undo the fact that they got it spectacularly wrong and that our trust was misplaced. We will not trust the church hierarchy again unless it becomes fundamentally different.”
Claire, please allow me to “push” your argument a bit here. Who is “we”? Manifestly, “we” is not “the Catholic faithful as a whole”, because it is clear that your opinions are not universally shared. That is not to say that you’re wrong to be upset, but restructuring(!) the church changes it for everyone. It raises questions about whose opinions are privileged over others’.
Also – nobody would argue that the bishops and others have gotten it spectacularly wrong in the past. But suppose they have reformed their ways – that they have learned their lesson, and made significant (albeit non-structural) changes that minimize, to the extent possible, the re-occurrence of problems. Don’t advocates for structural change need to recognize that? Shouldn’t those changes be given a chance first?
“John Borst’s first post’s suggestions have many advantages … what do you not like about them?”
I had skipped over that comment (along with a number of other comments), so thanks for calling his suggestions to my attention. Let’s briefly look at them:
“a) there has to be a radical rethinking of the training of priests. It needs to start with being a post graduate studies program which delays entry of any underage boys and (preferably girls) and raises the qualifications of those entering the place.”
That’s largely happened, if not by design, then by circumstance. In the US, most minor seminaries are now a thing of the past. FWIW, the experience in Chicago and elsewhere for the last couple of decades has been that the boys attending the high school seminary did not continue on to seminary and the priesthood (they got a free ride through Catholic high school, though); and that most of the candidates for the major seminary did not come out of the high school/minor seminary system. Chicago has now closed its high school seminary. (I’m not sure about their undergraduate seminary). That’s the trend around the US. It may also be happening elsewhere, I’m not sure.
“Then the courses have to change to teach administration and secular law and how to respect and handle difficult situations not just hide them. Not that I really have much clue as to what they actually teach in such an institution but clearly it is not at all how to administer a diocese in this era.”
I expect they do train them in handling difficult situations, at least nowadays. Granted, most likely it’s a relatively recent development. In general, though, seminaries train priests, not bishops. Any training a bishop receives to be a competent bishop (and I don’t know what kind of training a new bishop gets – ideally, a combination of formal coursework and some mentoring) happens after ordination, not a as a seminarian.
“b) the state must make it mandatory for bishops to report all claims of sexual abuse to the secular authorities”
I agree with this. In my state (Illinois) and I believe most other states, that’s actually a legal requirement – clergy are mandated reporters, like teachers and health care workers.
“c) the bishops and the Church must approve of such a law and must set up there own quasi-judicial system in which all members of the clergy including bishops and cardinals irrespective of sex must belong and through which a complaint about a clergy person’s behaviour be independently reported and then judged by his/her peers in much the same fashion as Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses and Teachers and other professions. Its not perfect but it goes a long way to creating transparency. I would include the publishing of all cases brought before such a body. Such a body would have lay people on their board of governors and would have the authority to defrock priests/bishops/cardinals.”
I agree that dioceses must cooperate with these laws. As for the ecclesiastic judicial system: in the US there is a similar system already (I think John B is Canadian, and I can’t speak for what is in place in Canada) – in the case of the US, I believe the process was put in place by the Dallas Charter. It utilizes the diocesan tribunal structure that already exists. My understanding is that it has the power to suspend priests and deacons from ministry. It lacks the ability to defrock – that is reserved to Rome, and I doubt that bishops are subject to it, as they are themselves the supreme judicial authority in their dioceses. So it’s not perfect, but many of the elements are in place.
“d) Bishops have to establish lay over site boards at both the diocesan level and at the parish level with the authority to remove the priest or bishop for mismanagement of funds and just plain incompetence has has been demonstrated in the handling of sexual abuse. ”
We’ve discussed this before. Ultimately, the power in the diocese resides with the bishop. In Chicago, there is a finance board that does have lay representation and does exercise some oversight, e.g. by conducting audits of parishes. Whether that excellent practice is universal, I don’t know.
To summarize: I don’t dislike John’s suggestions at all. But except for the last recommendation, they’re already happening, either entirely or to large extents, and none of them require any restructuring.
Lay oversight of bishops is the part that won’t happen – except, as we’ve seen in the implementation of the Dallas Charter, via independent auditing authorities. Those authorities have the power to recommend, and to bring dark and dirty things into the light of day, and those are powerful weapons. No bishop wants to be listed in NCR as the one whose diocese is out of compliance. Granted, though, it doesn’t extend to direct authority over the bishops, and it can’t. It goes to tne notion of apostolic succession -some foundational things about how the church is structured.
You could be right that “we” are not the Catholic faithful as a whole. Time will tell.
You say: “suppose the bishops have reformed their ways”. I take it that, for the US, you are referring to the Dallas charter. I say: how do we know that they will apply it if we don’t keep watch vigilantly? What happens when a bishop does not apply it? What guarantees do we have in the long term? In general how can we verify that they do what they say they are doing? More importantly, their past actions show that the reputation of the church was their first priority, before justice, compassion and truth. That cannot be regulated by canon law. Has it changed? I read what some of them say, and their words do not ring true to me. I do not believe that they have truly reformed their ways.
In short, you are proceedings from a perspective of basic trust, and I am not, so we look at one text and see two different things.
Someone writes “I’m sorry”, you say: “see, he is sorry, it says so right there”, and I say: “How do we know? Let’s see a tangible proof — discipline, sacrifice, resignation, something by which to prove this statement. Otherwise, it’s empty words.”
Someone writes: “mistakes were made”, you say: “see, he’s learned his lesson”, I say: “How do we know that? Let’s hear specifics – what he identified as mistakes, how they were wrong, made by who, when, where. I am not convinced by general statements.”
How can we even dialogue?
I’m glad you don’t dislike John’s suggestions!
Carolyn: “Petty gossip” is the translation of “chiachiericcio,” which I translated as “chattering”; and the word occurs precisely in the text I quoted. Nothing in the context suggests that it refers to the sex-abuse scandal. He is exhorting young people not to be intimidated by popular views, to have the courage to resist them. As Joe McMahon points out above, it was a false lead from the beginning to give it the dismissive meaning that so many people seem to have adopted.
Just curious (grin), how do you translate “petty gossip” in Italian?
“Wherefore the priesthood, while indeed it presupposes the sacraments of Christian initiation, is conferred by that special sacrament; through it priests, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are signed with a special character and are conformed to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head.” (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2)
The key to understanding the “special character” conferred upon priests by the Sacrament of Orders is found in in the words, “and are conformed to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head.” When the priest is presiding at the Eucharistic celebration, he is “acting in the person of Christ the Head”. He is not himself “another Christ”–there is only one Christ, who is present, even today, when His Mystical Body gathers to celebrate Eucharist–but rather he “acts in the person of Christ the head.”
At the meal he celebrated with his closest friends the night before his Passion and Death, Jesus washed the feet of sinful men! “I am in your midst as one who serves.”
Ken, I have to disagree. When someone is anointed, he or she becomes another “anointed one”, which is translated as Christ in Greek. It is like saying that someone who is hit by a paintball is “painted.” That does not mean that they have a portrait to take home with them.
While that is the base for this terminology, I agree with you entirely that the more important change is the functional change, that an anointed priest “can act in the person of Christ the Head.”
Some points: Nobody was ordained at the Last Supper—leadership transfer certainly occured with Jesus washing feet, instructing the Apostles not to imitate the manner of leadership of secular society (a pit-fall the Church fell into during the Fall of Rome), and the institution of the Eucharist. But there were NO priests or priesthood. Early leadership of the local churches was by the episcopos—who a few centuries later—did begin the priesthood to assist them.
It took the official Church centuries to evolve to the governing, structural point where it is. But that was before universal education, and the swiftness of the media. We, the laity, are not the “little people” that Benedict XVI describes. We have more education than our parents and certainly our grandparents. And a number of us are trained in organizational management. The leadership of our Church—needs to have an “Up-Dating” the likes of which it failed to do after Vatican II.
By the way, Jim, what area of “Apostolic Succession” would be challenged by lay oversight?
Vatican Council II stated that every one of the baptized faithful are full and equal members of the Church. This was called the radical equality of all the baptized. But the Vatican keeps insisting that only clergy (hierarchy) can made decisions in the Church. That means that the people of God don’t own their own Church.
The concept that the laity cannot oversee many aspects of Church governance is about as false as the Isidorean Decretals.
Hi, Little Bear, I’m not sure this is the place for a detailed discussion of Apostolic Succession (or maybe it is!). While I agree that the Last Supper and the washing of the feet are signal events that provide much spiritual food for reflection on leadership in the church, they are not our only sources. There are the stories recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, in which we do see formal leadership exercised by the apostles, and there are the letters of Paul, in which we see various instances of Paul, the least of the apostles but still an apostle, exerting his claim to authority. We also have the witness of the church itself through history.
The church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Those four “marks” are not mutually exclusive; if she ceased being apostolic, we may be sure that her unity, holiness and catholicity would also be gravely diminished.
Look – I’m all for calling miscreants to account. Being ordained to any sort of holy order, including bishop, shouldn’t exempt anyone from the demands of justice. But I disagree that “restructuring” is the way to solve these problems, and believe that it would cause all sorts of collateral damage. There are plenty of ways to work within the current structure to bring about justice. Let’s focus on that. We’re not there yet, by a long shot. Let’s get closer to the goal.
“You say: “suppose the bishops have reformed their ways”. I take it that, for the US, you are referring to the Dallas charter.”
Yes, if by “Dallas Charter” you mean, not only the piece of paper, but the substantial and exhaustive work that has flowed from it – the audits, the studies, the changes in procedure in dioceses, the suspension and dismissal of scores of previous offenders, the training of millions(!) of employees and volunteers and even, in a misbegotten effort, children. It’s been a tremendous undertaking that has, I believe, borne much good fruit.
” I say: how do we know that they will apply it if we don’t keep watch vigilantly? .. I read what some of them say, and their words do not ring true to me. I do not believe that they have truly reformed their ways.”
You should not take them at their word. You should demand evidence. I pointed to a significant body of it just above: the activity and safeguards that have flowed from the Charter. Another data point is one that I’ve seen reported in a couple of news stories this week: only six cases of abuse have been reported in the last year. Six is not a perfect score, but it probably indicates that the various steps taken since Dallas – e.g. the dismissal of a lot of the bad apples – has started to pay off.
“In short, you are proceedings from a perspective of basic trust, and I am not, so we look at one text and see two different things … How can we even dialogue?”
No, I share your skepticism, at least to a degree. The institutional church forfeited its “just trust me” card a long time ago. As I’ve endeavored to point out here, though, it hasn’t been just empty words since Dallas, either. A lot of hard work has been done by a lot of people to change the church for the better. All of us need to recognize that.
As for dialogue: you and I have had several conversations, in which we haven’t agreed on everything, but we’ve managed to do it in a respectful way. No reason I know of that can’t continue :-)
” He is not himself “another Christ”–there is only one Christ, who is present, even today, when His Mystical Body gathers to celebrate Eucharist–but rather he “acts in the person of Christ the head.””
Ken –
I’m curious about this phrase “in the person of”. It is my understanding that the root meaning of the latin word “persona” was taken from its meaning in Roman theater where it meant a mask worn by an actor to signify that he was imitating some other person. In other words, a “persona” was a public symbol of someone else.
I’m wondering if the Roman theater meaning was ultimately the root-meaning of the theological phrase “in the person of Christ”, that “persona” went from “mask/image signifying a role” to “mask/mark signifying a particular human being” (Christ). If so , then I suggest that by this “mark” of priesthood is meant some symbol of Christ. Obviously, it is not a public mark, no tattoo or flame painted on the priest’s forehead. The “ontological” mark must be a mark on his soul, an image (I would think) of Christ that is to serve the priest as inspiration.
This explanation goes a lot further for me than that generic description ‘ontological change’. That is not without meaning either, though it doesn’t tell us very much about what sort of change it is. All it says really is that the change is a real one.
Jim Pauwels –
If substantive progress has been made, then how come a majority of the American bishps elected this man as president of the US, Conference of Catholic Bishops — the main organization that speaks for the Church here: Note the article is from VOTF.
http://votf.org/vineyard/Nov19_2008/survivor.html
“How is it that a cardinal archbishop of Chicago can get away with acknowledging,
* that he never reported allegations of sexual abuse of minors, something required by Illinois law;
* that he rejected the recommendations of his own Review Board in 2005 to remove a priest from ministry, and that more children were abused as a result;
* that he knew of five allegations against another priest since 2002 and did not remove him from service until 2006;
* that he secretly waged a six-year effort through 2002 for the early release from prison of a convicted child molester;
* that he welcomed an admitted felon to live at his mansion in 2003, indicated when the matter was disclosed publicly that the abuser would not work in Chicago again,
* but in violation of his word the molester attended meetings on seven occasions in 2007-8 in an archdiocesan building adjacent to a Chicago elementary school?
Behavior may have consequences for Catholics in the pews, but apparently the only outcome for Cardinal Francis George for enabling sexual abuse is the honor of being elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) last year. Such is the quagmire of episcopal arrogance and neglect in these times.”
Sorry, Jim, but though I don’t doubt that there are some good bishops with good judgment, by the election of Cardinal George the American bishops showed that a majority of them are satisfied to be led by a man who can at best be described as thoroughly lacking wisdom — or else a coward who can not face his own failings and the failings of his brother bishops.
By the way, you folks who are looking for some way to do something about the mess, you might consider joining Voice of the Faithful. It did have some problems a while back sticking to its professed goals — ending the abuse, getting real oversight of church finances, and seeking an official way for the laity to have a voice in Church governance — but those troubles seem to be over. It does not have as its goals women’s ordination, and changes in the other hot button issues.
Hi, Ann, certainly, Cardinal George has made some grievous errors.
Btw, I scanned your comment in vain for any mention of his role in bringing about the Dallas Charter. An oversight on VOTF’s part? Yet that work on his part might shed some light on why the bishops elected him to the presidency.
“you might consider joining Voice of the Faithful. It did have some problems a while back sticking to its professed goals — ending the abuse, getting real oversight of church finances, and seeking an official way for the laity to have a voice in Church governance — but those troubles seem to be over.”
IN other words, VOTF’s lapses are forgiveable. What about the bishops? Can they be forgiven, too?
Jim P. –
My point was that Cardinal George is not competent to be head fo the NCCB. No doubt he has some admirable qualities. But he is incompetent to lead the bishops, the bishops should have known it, nd they voted for him anyway.
If you don’t see that then you do not get it either. My point is not simply that C. George made some terrible mistakes. My point is that he *persisted* in such behavior many years after 1984 when there was perhaps some excuse for such cover-ups. Furthermore, it took the civil courts authorities to get him to admit it. At this point he is himself a scandal of one. He might have helped engineer Dallas, but then he ignored it in his own archdiocese. Mauvaid foi, Jim, mauvais foi.
Jim: yes about dialogue.
One last note: earlier I admitted that you could be right that “we” are not the Catholic faithful as a whole. But, judging from the reaction of the Irish Catholics to Pope Benedict’s letter, perhaps “we” distrustful Catholics encompasses a large majority of the Catholics of Ireland…
And now I’m going to focus on more uplifting topics for the Holy Triduum, so I’m signing off.
Have a good Easter everyone!
Jim –
I wouldn’t say that the members of VOTF who tried to widen the mission of the organization sinned. Not my idea of a sin. Lack of good judgment yes, sin no. So your equation of their bad judgment with C;
George’s misbehavior is not apt.
Of course there is forgiveness for bishops — when they *show* not merely *say* that they are repentant. I count our old emeritus Archbishop Hannan among those who have been happily forgiven. He got rid of Fr. Dino Cinel and apparently remained friends with the priest who broke the story in spite of his (Hannan’s) opposition to making the transgressions public. He’s well in his 90′s now, and he is beloved by many.
But I see no reason whatsoever for considering C. George to be an exemplary priest. In fact, he could easily be considered a rotten one. Do you have any excuses for his more recent behavior? Or do you think he has not misbehaved badly by endangering children even after Dallas?
Ann – no, I am not going to defend his errors. They are what they are.
VOTF is trying to paint a picture – straining at gnats to create a caricature. It’s not an accurate picture. Anyone who takes the trouble to learn Cardinal George’s history in this archdiocese knows that.
Obviously his brother bishops disagree with VOTF, his own clergy disagree with VOTF, and the faithful of the diocese (for whom he, not VOTF, is the authentic voice, btw) disagree with VOTF.
You might consider this: Chicago is not the sort of place that is likely to be accepting of egregiouis malefactors in the bishop’s mansion. We’re a major media market whose media outlets have shown no qualms about taking on the church when the story warrants it. Our clergy tends to be pretty progressive and extremely independent. (A lot of Commonweal readers). They’re not toadies and yes-men – they’re very much the opposite. We have a ton of well-educated and active Catholics who aren’t afraid to speak up. If there is a problem, we’re not the kind of place that is going to just sit and take it.
But the outcry to get rid of Cardinal George is … well, there isn’t one.
And that’s all I’m going to say here about Cardinal George.
Anyone who wants details abou the problems which jim describes as “gnats” can find them at these sites.
* This is the VOTF home page for information about both bishops and priests and other abusers. Among other things it includes short histories of the individual cases and internet addresses of articles in newspapers both local and national about the cases. There are general articles on topics of general interest, plus other sorts of information. The site has a limited search function.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
* Here is the entry of articles, etc., on Cardinal George. Or you can just search “Francis George”.
http://search.bishop-accountability.org/search?q=francis+george&ie=&site=ba- prod&output=xml_no_dtd&client=ba-prod&lr=&proxystylesheet=ba-prod&oe=
* This is the deposition of C. George in re the 2006 case of Fr. Daniel McCormack. Remember: these are the Cardinal’s own words. Here”s from the first page of the site:
“The deposition of Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago was taken by Jeffrey Anderson on January 30, 2008 and was released to meet a nonmonetary demand of the survivors who settled with the archdiocese on August 11, 2008. The deposition focuses on:
• George’s hitherto unknown campaign in 1997-2002 to obtain early release from prison for convicted child molester Rev. Norbert Maday.
• The archdiocese’s failure to remove Rev. Daniel McCormack despite many allegations, and the resulting abuse in 2006.
• George’s 2005 decision not to remove Rev. Joseph Bennett despite five allegations—and the ten other allegations, hitherto unknown, that emerged when Bennett was finally removed.
These three cases raise serious questions about compliance with civil and church law and about the promotions that George and his managers enjoyed despite their failures. George’s testimony also sheds light on the church post-Dallas and the persistent issues of monitoring, Review Board effectiveness, and clericalism.
This webpage offers a convenient version of the deposition, designed so that readers can read it easily, do searches, access individual pages, and view exhibits while they read. Below on this page we offer our own table of contents and list of document exhibits, and the text of the deposition with added photos, images of selected documents, and links to all the exhibits. These enhancements are clearly distinguished from the text of the deposition, which was scanned from the archdiocese’s released copy and compared carefully against the original. You may search the full text of the deposition on this page by using the search function in your browser (in Internet Explorer, type control-F, type the word you wish to search, and type enter).”
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/depo/2008_01_30_Cardinal_Francis_George/
Ann, you’re right that not everything attributed to George should be described as gnats. Some are more substantial than others.
As for the aptitude of “forgive” – not only sins can be forgiven. Debts can be forgiven, mistakes can be forgiven, bad judgment can be forgiven. I wasn’t talking about sin, I was talking about credibility, or lack thereof.
The bishops had a long way to go to re-establish credibility. My point in this discussion is that they have accomplished some things pursuant to the Dallas Charter, and if we’re being fair, we need to acknowledge those things. Not that they’re out of the woods – not by a long shot. But they have built a track record of reform over the last eight years. It’s something to build on.
VOTF got lost in the woods at some point, too. I don’t view them as very credible, or, to be frank, as very important. Maybe they can demonstrate that they matter in some way. I’m not holding my breath.
Ann, your comments about Cardinal George illustrate the problem very well. Thanks for the links to VOTF.
This thread has led me to think about some structural issues from outside the box, so to speak. While I like John Borst’s sober suggestions, and think they are probably helpful steps and things that can be good to do without fundamentally changing the system, I wonder if Lisa’s original question doesn’t ask for some more adventurous thoughts. What structural changes will actually help which may be quite a departure from the structures we currently have? I know I have a problem imagining a church running differently and structured differently.
But since we are dreaming here, I am looking for structures that maximize freedom and create situations in which the hierarchy has incentives to respond positively to the concerns of the laity. The first arena, therefore, that occurs to me is financial. Create a mechanism for the laity in a track-able manner to direct their donations out of clerical hands, when they so choose. Follow the money. Then, if the hierarchy wants money, it will have to compete for it. The second is judicial. Create a court of lay elders, whose decisions are binding. This might be an extraordinary tool, used only in rare instances, but able to be invoked by the people. The third is sacramental. Make sacramental sharing with other Christian churches easier. Local churches that have good leadership will do better than those that don’t. This will provide incentives to improve. None of these things will happen of course, because the current system actually desires complete control of money, of mechanisms of justice, and of membership. But it has been an interesting exercise to think about these things. Merely changing the candidate pool for holy orders — by, for example, opening it to married men, or women — would probably not get to the root of the clerical estate problem. Electing bishops might help, but then again it might not. Yet I think that more local involvement in bishop selection is a good idea.
“What happens when a bishop does not apply it (the Dallas Charter)?”
Fabian Bruskewitz, anyone?
The problem with the Dallas Charter is that is completely misses the actual issue – bishops and cover up. It is completely geared to penalizing priests only; in fact, many legal experts question the legality and extremes (zero tolerance) that the Dallas Charter have set up.
As you can see from above citings e.g. George in Chicago; the charter still fails because it relies upon bishops for implementation.
Jason Berry in the Daily Kos lays out some interesting steps that Rome needs to take action on in order to regain some semblance of credibiility. The issue is bishops and their connection to Rome; their shared cover-ups; Rome’s inaction, etc.
Jim P said: “IN other words, VOTF’s lapses are forgiveable. What about the bishops? Can they be forgiven, too?”
Are you SERIOUSLY equating the two kinds of lapses? Really?
“The problem with the Dallas Charter is that is completely misses the actual issue – bishops and cover up.”
Bill, I have to disagree on a couple of grounds:
* The purpoes of the Charter is to *protect children*. That is the “actual issue” that it is set up to address. It is, ultimately, the whole point of the exercise. And the Charter seems to have accomplished a lot of good things already in this regard.
* I will certainly grant that it doesn’t bind nor assign penalties to bishops, but there are aspects of the charter, such as diocesan standards, audits and studies, that do go to the issue of bishops and cover up. The fact is, the Charter has profoundly changed the way that nearly every diocese goes about protecting children. And I would argue that within the scope of its charter, it *has* called bishop to account.
Still, I agree that consistent and enforceable standards for bishops would be a major step forward.
“The first arena, therefore, that occurs to me is financial. Create a mechanism for the laity in a track-able manner to direct their donations out of clerical hands, when they so choose. Follow the money. Then, if the hierarchy wants money, it will have to compete for it.”
Now there is an idea. The hierarchy has always followed the money.
Of course all three ideas which Rita laid out were terrific.