March Madness–thank you Lord for April
April 1, 2010, 9:37 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
“You have to wonder if the Roman Catholic Church circa 2010 is what Jesus had in mind as he hung on the cross. Probably not. On the other hand, the current explosion is likely not a surprise to him. According to Luke’s Gospel, Jesus was executed as a common criminal–death by crucifixion–and hung between two thieves. One of his followers turned him over to the authorities, another denied knowing him, and all of them fled when he most needed them. His expectations about how these followers might undertake his commission to teach all nations were possibly not very high.
“The past weeks’ headlines, Catholic reactions, and official ecclesiastical responses would seem to confirm those low expectations….”
Nice piece. But MoDo as a Hindu? Ouch!
I hate to be a nudz, but they misspelled “vitriol” in the hedder. Critics will cite such things as evidence that your entire argument is faulty….
“Though I am no fan of this pope, I can’t help wondering how such a level of hysteria has fixed so quickly and resolutely on him.”
Beyond the titillation aspect, to me it is a logical consequence of the fact that for the past 40 years, the papacy has explicitly sucked power in the Church from the bishops, the theologians and the faithful to itself. Benedict is reaping what he and John Paul II sowed (e.g., Apostolos Suos, Ad Tuendam Fidem, changes and lack thereof in canon law, the CDF, etc.). See the latest review by John Wilkins in NCR of the Ladislas Orsy book Receiving the Council: Theological and Canonical Insights and Debates that lays this all out.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/unity-wins-out-over-diversity
What did the NYT know and when did it know it?
The credibility of journalism is at stake. We need far more transparency from the NYT. Identification of all the sources for the stories, their biases and interests, would be a miinimal gesture. The entire culture of secrecy, protection of anonymity and traditional defenses of the “needs” of journalism must be renounced. The coverup is worse than the original crime. And each revelation about the process, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, slowly erodes the trust we have placed in this venerable institution. Criticism of the NYT has been impeccable. Now we need genuine repentance from this shadowy and frightening institution.
Jeanne:
Bishops have had the power to remove priests from ministry, to punish them, to give comfort to victims, to not set church attorneys against victims, to report criminals to the law and INSIST on prosecution – the only thing they can’t do is laicize. But anything short of that in regard to the priest scandal, they can do – and haven’t, and that’s the problem.
*Bishops.*
Mark, I agree the bishops are ultimately responsible as you point out, regardless of the centralizing that was going on. But one of the results of that increasing centralization was the selection of the bishops themselves. The makeup of the current crop of bishops was formed by the long papacy of Pope John Paul II, who filled the episcopate with those who not only toed the papal party line (e.g., whose attitudes agreed with the Pope’s stands on birth control, celibacy, women’s ordination, reform of the Curia, and the Synod of Bishops etc.) but who even refused to approve of the discussion of such issues. This is not exactly a high point of faith harmonizing with reason.
Ya gotta wonder what’s up with the Church’s love affair with autocracy and controlling people into obedience. You’d think that an institution steeped in the long-held belief that humans are flawed by original sin would have done a little better job instituting checks and balances in its governance.
The more the flood of information about the sex scandal comes in, the more I agree with those who maintain we’re asking the wrong questions. Is it really important what the pope and the Vatican knew or didn’t know about Munich or Murphy, for instance? Benedict seems to be surrounded by a Swiss Guard of scribblers, all intent on preserving his virtue against revelations in the press. Why? Have popes never done wrong in the past — out of ambition, politics, corruption, or just plain ignorance? Did anything really change (besides public relations) with the formation of the modern papal monarchy in the 19th century? In a top-down administrative structure, just what is the responsibility of the Man in Charge?
Others on this site have suggested that the pope has a “bishops problem”, or indeed that the bishops have a “pope problem” (or perhaps both, which is probably more accurate). In any case, what church leaders clearly have is a “laity problem.” How is the laity supposed to react to popes, bishops, and priests who for years have known about these problems, and done little or nothing about their root causes? What guidance have church leaders given them other than the implying that they should shut up and mind their own business, because Father (or indeed Papa) knows best? Why has the church been content to ignore the continuing de-evangelization, as men and women, unable to stick prevarication and deception any more, simply pick up and leave — in the US, in Ireland, in Germany, in other countries? How far have prevarication and deception undermined the church’s teaching authority? How far should they have?
How often have you heard such questions addressed from the pulpit? I have heard the scandal thus mentioned seriously only twice in the now almost ten years since its full enormity began to be revealed publicly by the US press. If my own diocesan paper is typical, the next issue will report on the bishop’s Holy Week activities, print something of the Holy Father’s homilies, and consider that it’s done its job. Almost surely it will say nothing about these awkward questions, because that might “scandalize” the layfolk — at least those who still bother to read the paper.
Even if many prefer to look the other way, or seek refuge in the belief that all this is a vast anti-Catholic conspiracy, I can’t imagine that students in Catholic universities and colleges aren’t raising some tough questions for their mentors. How are such questions handled, I wonder, at Villanova, or Fordham, or Notre Dame, or Boston College, or Santa Clara, and the like? How are they handled at places like the St. Thomas More Center at Yale, the Harvard Catholic Students Association, the Aquinas Center at Princeton (unfortunately, I can guess the answer to that last), or all the Newman Clubs, and so forth, around the country? These are grown-up questions, and deserve answers directed to grown-ups, not children.
As some of us have said here before, we should all — laity, popes, bishops, priests, and the rest — abandon the “not my fault!” mode, reflect deeply on the Holy Week stories of denial and betrayal, and ask ourselves how such failings play a role in the greater story of Resurrection that is the culmination of this week, and the descent of the Spirit that is the culmination of this season.
Patrick Molloy et al… If you have problems with the NYT I suggest email their ombudsman. they have one .. To whom to complain to on the other 1000 newspapers and 24-7 cable TV, I have no suggestions.
David Gibson: md as Hindu! Why not? they have many more deities for her to pillory, and she could still write for the Times!
I’m surprised no post yet asking Mrs. Steinfels where here outrage is? or maybe directed at Ms. Dowd?
A few things:
-the notion of hysteria seems hyperbolic to me when even the venerable John Allen describes the current situation as a crisis.
-it’s the bishops job to insulate their higher ups (especially the Pope) from criticism, so i find the emphasis on bishops here slightly suspect. I do agree, however, that we (all) have met the enemy and he is us.
-I think Maureen Dowd captures a feeling tone of angry Catholics toward the leadership of a Church that many see betrayed them.
That’s both a sevice and a recognition that perception often makes behavior more than intellectualizing an issue. Which, to come full circle, i don’t think is equal to hysteria.
Bob N: Are you asking where my outrage is? Or is that just a rhetorical question?
The venerable John Allen is right, there is a crisis. What is it–exactly?
We’ve been around the Maureen Dowd issue before–the angry Catholics I know are far more precise, articulate, and rational about the leadership of the church and what’s wrong. MD: her column yesterday (Wednesday) was all over the place–dare I say hysterical?
I thought it might be a Bill M. question.
I’m not sure that most Catholics or members of John Q. Public are precise, rationmal and articulate about our Church.
What grabs people are sometimes more Swiftian approaches ( though I probably do Ms. Dowd a favor in that comparison.)
The crisis I keep sayingi s over credibility and beyond that power issues which have surfaced and will continue to. I don’t think that’s hysteria -my view
It also occurred to me that Cardinal Rode in ordering the religious visitation described their stae as a “crisis.”
Now that’s hysteria and par tof what fuels the anger of M. Dowd.
IMHO it doesn’t take much to fuel the anger of M. Dowd about a whole range of subjects. My underlying point: I don’t see that unhinged, ungrounded anger gets us anywhere, ditto hysteria.
Peggy,
If I may joust with you dare I say that you remain a slow study of things like this. The person I met circa 2000, (I forget the year) would never have given the stirring, accusatory speech you gave at Dallas. You can tell us perhaps more clearly, but it seems to me that the bishops looked upon you differently after the Dallas speech and I somehow suspect that they tried to get you out as editor of Commonweal. Of course they did the same to Thomas Doyle in 85, Bernardine in the 90s and Keating in 2003.
So I am not worried about your outrage as you prefer to bide your time, and, most importantly not let the bishops define you as they are now trying with the NYTimes. But when that outrage comes what will the bishops do then? Form Dallas 2?
As you note the Catholic blogosphere went ballistic this time with so much suspicion reaching the “Arc of Peter.” The problem is the body Catholic outside the miters remains irresponsible in confronting and changing them. That is the real outrage. The mediocrity of the members.
Seems to me this paragraph from
From The Nation — http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100419/pollitt
Papal Indulgences
by Katha Pollitt
is a good example of why so many Catholics are so outraged by the response of the Vatican and some local bishops (in Canada Collins in Toronto, and Henry in Calgary)
Just back from church! What am I doing here?
Bill M: joust all you want. Your judgement that I am slow (Perhap. What do we say these days? learning disabled? challenged? whatever), will be greeted with mirth by the near and dear. The bishops don’t know me from …. bananas and “they” (whomever they may be) had nothing to do with my departure from CWL, which I left of my own free will, because it was time, and as I said at the time, because of the character deforming side-effects of always rendering judgments). Joust on!
John Borst: I had no idea Lutherans drank. That is news to me! What she did was indeed honorable and correct. I think the difference here is that she was caught, presumably by the gendarmarie!
http://www.ricksteves.com/about/pressroom/activism/luther.htm
(Rick Steves, a Lutheran, did a show about Martin Luther, the King of Hops.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharina_Luther
(Frau Luther ran a brewery.)
I guess in some traditions beer is an alcoholic drink. Imagine!
Peggy,
Glad you relived me of that notion. The timing struck me as odd. But sometimes thing are just as they are without any sub plots. And your non-explanation seemed….
The distinquished former coach of the New York Giants, Bill Purcell, used the term “It’s time”, but resurfaced at coaching for at least two other teams. So….
At any rate it was a fun joust.