‘Benedict in the Dock’
From our April 9 editorial, recently posted on our homepage:
In his last years as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and from the beginning of his papacy, Pope Benedict has demonstrated a real understanding of the nature and scope of the clergy sexual-abuse crisis. He came to that understanding much too slowly, but once he grasped the dimensions and horror of the scandal he acted with diligence and genuine remorse, accelerating the process for removing priests, meeting with victims, and demanding at least some measure of accountability from his fellow bishops.
Much of the pope’s good work in this regard is now likely to be brushed aside as the history of his own negligence in handling an abusive priest when he was archbishop of Munich thirty years ago comes to light. It should not be surprising that then-Archbishop Ratzinger accepted an offending priest from another diocese, placed him in therapy, and immediately reassigned him to another parish where he abused more children. Burying rather than confronting the problem of abusive priests is what nearly every bishop did at the time.
Why did bishops insist on holding on to priests and thereby endangering children? The answer is more complicated than many want to admit, involving archaic ideas about the remedy for sexual sin, troubling notions about the sacrosanct nature of the priesthood, and a different societal attitude about how to respond to such abuse.
Read the rest right here.
Grant,
Thanks for posting this. I promised myself that I wouldn’t read the blogs on Good Friday, but the enormity of this crisis has left me groping for answers, for wisdom, for context and COMMONWEAL is where I have this more than any place else. This editorial’s analysis and suggestions for healing and for justice seem judicious and very much rooted in the Gospel.
My only question is this: has the Vatican kept up its subscription? I hope so–for all our sakes.
Anthony
On March 16, before the NYT’s recent venture, Megan McArdle, not a Catholic by the way, speculated on her blog:
“it seems at least possible that the real reason the Catholic Church scandals are so bad is that the Catholic Church is one central institution that you can complain about. Thousands of Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc churches across the country could have the same number of constituents, and the same number of abusers, but it wouldn’t register as a central problem.”
She got lots of interesting responses, pro and con her hypothesis, but this one was noteworthy:
“Anecdotally, we recently had my husbands best friend from high school visit. He has been a priest for 10 years. We wanted to let him visit my kids school, accompanied by us, not on his own – just a tour. Holy crap! It practically takes an act of congress to let a priest from an outside Diocese visit a school (with supervision!). I could have brought a drunk panhandler from the intersection to visit easier than a priest who is also the longtime best friend of my husband.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/03/the-law-of-big-numbers/37546/
I don’t know how widespread these sorts of policies are but I fear more are coming.
I agree with the tone of the editorial but; I say a resignstion of an 83 year old pontiff may be the only action that can restore balance/harmony to the entire Church, Is not that kind of balance and harmony worth an end of a ‘reign’, a reign which is very proximate anyway? It reminds me of the last days of the Japanese empire where millions were going to die while the status/ reputation of a divine emperor was debated. Basta
If I remember correctly, St. Charles Borromeo punished such “offending” clerics by putting them in a deep well, fed them bread and water once a week, for the rest of their lives. Pope Paul IV had such clerics executed.
What would be the public’s response be if Benedict employed similar measures?
Thank you for this editorial. It helps me settle some of this.
As I have followed your blog on this subject, Something else occurred to me. The swirling controversies are actually, though somewhat accidentally, created by Benedict himself:
The report is Ireland would perhaps have raised a controversy, but nothing like what happened when Archbishop Martin added his voice in support of his conclusions.
In Germany, Fr Hullerman served as a priest until removed by the Archbishop appointed by Benedict.
Before Benedict became Pope, he played a role in naming Schönborn to Vienna to replace the archbishop who was accused of pedophilia, despite strong support in Rome for another bishop who was later implicated in a sexual scandal at his seminary.
The archbishops in Ireland and Munich are at the center of the present uproar. And in Vienna this week, the Cardinal led a healing service for abuse victims. I am not saying Benedict is faultless, but appointments like these are the most important thing he can do. I hope he, and his successors, finds more bishops who will act to end the abuse of children.
Sorry, but you don’t tell he truth in this editoral.
“No sentient person could believe the denials church officials in Munich and the Vatican made on behalf of the pope, saying Benedict played no role in the transfer of the abusive priest. With dreary predictability, documents have surfaced showing that the pope had in fact presided at the meeting where the transfer and reassignment were approved.”
This is not true.
Neither Munich nor the Vativan have ever denied that Benedict played a role in the transfer of Fr. Hullermann to Munich. See this press release of the archdiocese in Munich:
“Als Kaplan wurde H. auf Bitten des Bistums Essen im Januar 1980 in der Erzdiözese München und Freising aufgenommen. Er sollte in München eine Therapie machen. Aufgrund der Aktenlage muss die Arbeitsgruppe des Ordinariates davon ausgehen, dass damals bekannt war, dass er diese Therapie vermutlich wegen sexueller Beziehungen zu Jungen machen sollte. 1980 wurde beschlossen, H. Unterkunft in einem Pfarrhaus zu gewähren, damit er die Therapie wahrnehmen könne. Diesen Beschluss hat der damalige Erzbischof mit gefasst.”
http://www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/Page007121.aspx
Grant – thanks for this post. The editorial is well written, tries to be balanced, is definitely not a piece of “frenzy.”
But, as you and your colleagues well know, there will be more revelations; more cases; there will continue to be an appearance of cover-up; finger pointing, blaming the media, etc. (AB Dolan is a good example of this)……B16 can not control what may or may not surface.
Your editorial does not really mention definitive steps or action plans to this crisis. It does focus on the victims; the damage, etc. http://www.elephantsinthelivingroom.com/ – open and clik on “Vatican Psychology”
Respect the balanced approach but does Ratzinger have both the will and the skill to take on the institution at its worst? Can he be transparent, open, and confrontive in the best and most healthy sense of that concept?
From a response by Thomas Doyle: excerpt – “There will continue to be abuse by the clergy as long as the ecclesiastical environment that allowed it to flourish continues as a closed, hierarchical system enshrouded in secrecy and sustained by the power of fear. As sexual abuse cases surface in country after country the patterns of cover-up, collusion and denial are the same. This is not proof of an international conspiracy or a secret order sent to all bishops as some would have it, but of something more radical. The world-wide outrage, the seemingly countless lawsuits and the close examination by various academics are directed at the status quo in three areas: the essential role of the clerical sub-culture, hierarchical governance and the efficacy of the theological dogmas that support them. The most realistic response is also the most fearful to the hierarchy and to many clergy and laity as well: a thorough, fearless examination of the heretofore untouchable system of power and control and the closed, secretive and often privileged world at the heart of the institutional church. There is really only one vital question: why is this system and the men who sustain it more important than the emotional, physical and spiritual welfare of a single, innocent child?”
Another exerpt: “It is unlikely that Pope Benedict would ever allow a close scrutiny of the clerical-hierarchical world. In his letter to the Irish he leveled unprecedented criticism directly at the bishops but stopped far short of demanding radical accountability nor did he dismiss the most egregious architects of the cover-up. To undertake the unspeakable and allow an objective, fearless and radical examination into the causal relationship between the “scandal” and the system would lead to a risk that probably extends beyond the imagination of all bishops, namely the dismantling of the very structures that assure the existence of their world.”
Do not mean to be pessimistic on this Good Friday but what Rev. Doyle is suggesting is in reality a true Good Friday for the institutional church – can the institution/hierarchy die to themselves? He ends by saying: “The pope will not resign and it is unlikely that there will be a widespread purge of every bishop who has engineered a cover-up. A few bishops will submit to pressure to resign, but it is unlikely that any will be submitted to any disciplinary measures or if they are it will not be made public. Catholics who have been sexually abused, encouraged by the current wave of publicity and assisted by survivor support groups, will continue to overcome the fear and shame that had paralyzed them in diocese after diocese. The Vatican and the bishops will continue to respond defensively, perhaps with more creative yet still unconvincing excuses.
Well I find it incredible how this developed. I should note that having been born in the mid-1960’s, this is my reading and sense of the history of this tragedy. I should also note that as a child I never heard of or experienced any sort of abuse of any kind by any priest. We respected and trusted our priests implicitly and thankfully they were all good men.
Ok here goes – It seems most of these abuse cases occurred between the late 1950’s and the 1980’s. Since then, the incidence of abuse cases has dropped off drastically. Now just think for a moment about what was going on in the Church and in society during those years.
Basically liberals were very busy bees then – both in society and in the Church. In society, liberals made great strides in advancing their agenda from 1960 to the 1980′s. Within the Church, they wormed their way into various positions of authority and one aspect of their efforts was that they quietly lobbied for “tolerance and understanding”, which among other things eventually led to some seminaries ordaining some gay priests. The thinking was something like; since priests take the vow of celibacy, that being gay would not matter. In due course however, it became painfully clear that there is a great difference between a heterosexual man who naturally desires a woman and family but is willing to sacrifice that (i.e. remain celibate from women) in order to serve God as a priest, and a homosexual man who has no desire for woman or family in the first place but is willing to sacrifice his sexual desire (i.e. remain celibate from men) in order to serve God as a priest.
Conservatives certainly bear their share of blame in all this, because of their laziness, ignorance and pride. Not making the effort to even try to understand what was going on around them, they went around with blinders on, happily pontificating as usual. Then, when in fact the trouble and the scandals began to emerge, rather than facing the issue head on, because of their ignorance they were simply dumbfounded. Moreover while the bishops were justifiably horrified (who would not have been?), in addition to their ignorance, because of their pride they tried to cover it up in the foolish hope that it would just go away.
Well in the US, it all broke loose in the 1990’s and for the most part, the Church dealt with it; much sorrow, much money, etc.. Now it seems the same sort of scandal is breaking in Europe.
To be fair to the bishops of those days, liberal thought and the psychologists (the “professionals”) in those days tended toward recommending therapy and treatment (with eventual reinstatement) for offenders rather than more stern measures. That thinking has since been proven to be very wrong and now society takes a harder line.
Again it is worth noting that most of these abuse cases took place decades ago and the incidence of them has drastically dropped off since the 1980’s, as that generation of priests wanes and retires, and as new processes internal to the Church were implemented. It is also worth noting that both as a cardinal and now as pope, that Benedict has done more than anyone to reform the internal processes of the Church in order to prevent this sort of thing in future and indeed it seems that his efforts and the consequent reforms have so far been effective.
Interestingly though, the very same liberals who were so instrumental in setting the stage for the now decades-old sexual abuse cases, those whose well intentioned but misguided efforts helped set up this crashing failure, are the very ones now bawling the loudest and bashing the Church over the abuse cases and how they were handled. And of course lawyers like to make money, and the American press is traditionally anti-Catholic.
Finally, with Democrats and hard-line Leftists now holding the reigns of power in the USA, in addition to advocating for more abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and a general erosion social mores and family values, the American Left routinely tries to insinuate that priests are weird or some sort of perverts and that the pope is hopelessly corrupt. He is one of those Germans after all – Oh my!
No. I do not accept – and I will not accept – any of that nonsense for one second.
Just across the web came a story of the Pope’s preacher likening the criticism of him to virulent anti-semitism.
How about that for hysteria/frenzy. etc.
The beat goes on and will as Fr.Doyle suggests.
From my view, the issue of powe rat the center has made it too costly to go otherwise.
Typo alert – Should have been
“…quietly lobbied for [the sort of] “tolerance and understanding”, which among…”
I think Anonymous is right. The last sentence provided (loosely) translates,
“Of this decision, the former archbishop was included.”
Diesen Beschluss hat der damalige Erzbischof mit gefasst.”
It doesn’t take away from the overall point of your editorial though.
Ken,
While I think it is true that psychiatrists and psychologists were overly optimistic about therapy for sex abusers a few decades ago than they are now, I wonder if any of them ever said, “Sure, put the guy back in charge of kids. He’s cured.” And as I have said before, I wonder if a bishop would have put a known embezzler in charge of the finances for the diocese on the assurance that the embezzler was sorry, had gone through therapy, and would behave from now on.
Someone would have to provide me with reasonably good documentary evidence that therapists were giving solid assurances to bishops that they had “cured” abusers before I am willing to let the bishops off the hook.
Ken!!
Let me take the holier-than-thou approach and suggest that you spend the remainder of the Triduum in prayer. At some point, I or someone else will probably pick up the gauntlet that you threw, but not this weekend.
Have a blessed Easter!
Grant and editorial staff: Bravo! In my opinion, you hit just the right notes here and took just the right tone.
This would seem to be a good time to express my gratitude to Commonweal for its on-going coverage of the sexual abuse scandals. How difficult it must be to strike the right tone, but in my opinion you’ve managed it.
“Bishops were warned of abusive priests” —
http://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/bishops-were-warned-abusive-priests
And God only knows what the hierarchs in Rome and elsewhere got away with before 1950!
Paul L asked: “What would be the public’s response be if Benedict employed similar measures?”
Not necessary. But how about public firing of the more “perficious” of bishops who are still skating through life, protected by their alleged exalted ecclesiastical status?
Until SERIOUS actions are taken within the hierarchy, too many of the papal words come across as pious pablum.
Ken: it is comforting to you to blame the lefties, pinkos, etc.
But you forget under which type of church theology and discipline most of the miscreants were ordained.
Whas was sown has been reaped.
Bouquets first: impressive editorial in many respects, especially calling for meaningful repentance on Benedict’s part.
Brickbats: “(Recent stories in the New York Times concerning Benedict’s failure as head of the CDF to defrock an American abuser in the mid-1990s were more sensational than enlightening. That episode hinged on the CDF’s narrow jurisdiction over cases involving solicitation during confession. The CDF was not given the task of investigating all sexual-abuse accusations until 2001. Still, the story was a useful reminder of how the Vatican resisted efforts by American bishops to laicize abusive priests.)”
Actually, the CDF’s role was not a narrow one when push came to shove. It stopped the trial cold to prevent possible scandal and control secrecy (Bertone’s big fears – I’m tired of quoting minutes where the decision was made), and conveniently had a request for mercy at hand to provide cover. Weakland, the judge, and the victims wanted a trial on principle, no matter the state of Murphy’s health. Maybe Murphy’s family would have obeyed funeral restrictions if a trial were in progress. The story was very instructive about Vatican management practices.
Final questions: What Bill deHaas asks – does Ratzinger have both the will and the skill to take on the institution at its worst? Can he be transparent, open, and confrontive in the best and most healthy sense of that concept?
I fear Tom Doyle has it right, based on dreary experience: “The Vatican and the bishops will continue to respond defensively, perhaps with more creative yet still unconvincing excuses.”
Time to go pray for our church. At least there is fresh air in my local parish, and I hope in others’.
Blessings…
Jim – you asked me much earlier about the church’s role with “laicized or defrocked” pedophile clerics. It is my opinion that religious communities definitely have a responsiblity to work with and support and manage/regulate the offending member while ensuring the public/church safety. To just laicize or defrock and wash your hands is an added injustice.
It is also my opinion that the church/dioceses need to do the same – my feeling is that most dioceses have already paid out huge legal, insurance, hospitalization bills for these offenders. As a church, we have a responsibility again to not just wash our hands of the offender and release into the public arena.
You also stated that the major goal of the Dallas Charter was to protect children. You are correct but I would differ in terms of how successful, etc. A few points; some of these borrowed from Judge Ann who was head of the USCCB Dallas charter panel and made a statement this week:
- the current annual audits are self-reports by dioceses. There is no objective, neutral agency that can attest to their validity.
- bishops may or may not comply with the Dallas charter (e.g. Burskewitz never has; then, we have the repeated issues with folks such as your dear Cardinal who makes it up as he goes along – the Rev. McCormack case is a good example. He did not follow the charter; ignored his own panel; etc.) Almost every week, we hear of another example of a US Bishop who fails to implement/impose the Charter in a particular case
- the on-going education and annual re-education esp. for teenagers (VIRTUS) needs to be updated and made more realistic. There is no mention of priest abusers; no use of clerical situations of abuse in these training scenarios – it is all about volunteers, etc. The majority of abuse in the last 30 years in the US catholic church has been by priests – why no mention of this?
Oh Lord,
Today, the official preacher of the papal household Father Cantalamessa compares the abuse uproar to persecution of the Jews, with all the ugly insinuations of a Jewish media lobby. PLEASE! Tom D was talking about unconvincing excuses, all right.
John Allen wrote in 2002 about the same Vatican sentiment about the media. Maciel’s survivors ran into that too with a Vatican official. http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0719.htm)
Tom Reese complains about Benedict’s advisers. I wonder about Benedict’s own compass in choosing them. At least Lombardi disassociates the Vatican from this tone deaf story.
This is all very, very dispiriting and depressing.
The Pope must lead and make some kind of gesture. I hope that he is reflecting on this now and is able to respond in a way that is honest, personal, open, and humble.
Even though I am disappointed and angry, I am praying for him and the Catholic community and particularly those who have experienced abuse, silencing and pain.
I read the op-ed by Sinead O’Connor in the Washington Post and was very moved. Her rendition of St. Francis’ Make me a Channel of Your peace (which is linked below) has given me comfort during this troubled time and particularly on this most difficult Good Friday I have ever experienced. I do believe she has a good heart. Her, and those who travelled or are traveling the same kind of road she is on deserve leaders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtJeI4Q9nBE&fmt=18
Jimmy Mac to Ken: “But you forget under which type of church theology and discipline most of the miscreants were ordained.”:
Indeed, Jimmy Mac, indeed. Let’s look carefully at the numbers. Vat II ended in 1965, and though the incidence of abuse peaked in the “70s. the fact was that in the 70s most of the perps were not newly-graduated young priests whose morality had been corruped by the post-Vat II theology. Rather, the 1970 abusers were older men, largely middle-aged, who were trained in the earlier, pre-Vat II more rigid theology, Further, the problem clearly was present in the 50s and earlier, *before* Vat II, so Vat II can hardly be identified as “the” cause.
Nothing like over-simplifications for eliminating real problems..
Sheesh. Nothing like one cause thinking.
Go to bishopsaccountability.com to check the dates.
“There is no mention of priest abusers; no use of clerical situations of abuse in these training scenarios – it is all about volunteers, etc. The majority of abuse in the last 30 years in the US catholic church has been by priests – why no mention of this?”
Carolyn — If anything illustrates the bishops’ blame-the-other-guy mentality, this is it. And people wonder why so many of us say the bishops don’t have the courage to tell the truth? No, this isn’t a lie. It is a cover-up by omission; Still going on after 26 years :-(
I posted two suggestions for improving the editorial — they seem to have disappeared.
Can you believe it? After Judicial Vicar Thomas Brundage complained this week (had his little tantrum – pardon my impatience) about never being told the Murphy canonical trial was abated, it turns out HE actually drafted the Weakland letter to Bertone that says:
“First, I have instructed my Judicial Vicar to formally abate the judicial process that had begun against Father Murphy.”
http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/brundage.pdf
The cover note from Brundage to Weakland says, “As you have requested I put together what might be a response to Archbishop Bertone’s document regarding Fr. Murphy that he recently sent us. Here is a suggested response:” which is the text Weakland used except for very minor charges.
Brundage is now thinking up all sorts of excuses to spin the matter.
“Brundage said Friday that he has no memory of either letter. He voiced dismay at the apparent contradiction.”
http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/89802007.html
Ann,
I took the Virtus training twice and was disgusted with the film each time. It was as though priests were incidental to the matter, except for a brief statement by Bishop Aylmond at the beginning. Clergy abuse felt so muted and almost extraneous, and the offenders interviewed were not clergy. I expressed dismay, but no one seemed to notice.
There was a film at a Boston College lecture I attended with a very illuminating interview with a clergy abuser (Protestant) that really addressed some of the clerical aspects.
Carolyn, his handwriting isn’t as bad as he said, either. (Why is he in Alaska?)
The defenders of Pope Benedict keep calling attention to the fact that he had no jurisdiction over priest abusers until 2001. The fact of the matter is that CDF has jurisdiction over offending priests when solicitation occurred in the confessional, while Benedict was the prefect of CDF. A case revealed today from Arizona and reported by AP shows how he impeded the resolution that the local bishop was seeking:
The future Pope Benedict XVI took over the abuse case of an Arizona priest, then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood, according to church correspondence.
Documents reviewed by The Associated Press show that in the 1990s, a church tribunal found that the Rev. Michael Teta of Tucson, Ariz., had molested children as far back as the late 1970s. The panel deemed his behavior — including allegations that he abused boys in a confessional — almost “satanic.” The tribunal referred his case to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would become pope in 2005.
But it took 12 years from the time Ratzinger assumed control of the case in a signed letter until Teta was formally removed from ministry, a step only the Vatican can take.
One question that has never been satisfactorily answered, in my opinion, in all of the defenses of the Pope and bishops for their failure to act, is why is it that the Church did not act on these cases until it was forced to do so by prosecutors or lawyers?
That 8:59 “Anonymous” was me. Not sure why it didn’t post my name.
Gerelyn
Alan,
Great question. I believe it is fear of scandal and losing control of the secrets.
Those two fears were paramount in Bertone’s mind (Ratzinger’s assistant at the CDF). The focus on secrecy is, dare I say, pathological.
In the Murphy case in WI, despite Bertone knowing Murphy had no remorse, and simultaneously saying a trial was necessary if remorse was not present, he still called off the trial. The minutes specify “central points to be followed” and a trial was not among them. Why?
Simple, I believe Bertone really did not want a trial, period, out of fear of scandal and the risks for secrecy.
Murphy had sent a letter to Ratzinger five months before asking for mercy but it was left unanswered. It was full of lies: showing supposed remorse, but then why was Murphy pleading not guilty to the trial’s charges? Ratzinger with minimal due diligence could have discovered those lies.
But what a perfect way out to cancel a trial and use the mercy letter for cover. Direct that other measures/”precepts” be pursued instead. No trial, no possible scandal, and Ratzinger comes out with a compassionate image.
I believe Ratzinger and Bertone agreed directly or indirectly that the way to avoid the problematic issue was not to face it. Make convenient use of that letter seeking mercy, and let the clock run out on Murphy’s health.
It’s a great hands-off strategy that keeps the Vatican out of it, and leaves the archbishop to handle the pastoral consequences. Anyone objects, there’s perfect cover.
Where does the buck stop? At the top, one rung down, or both? The Vatican has shown great deftness in deflecting blame elsewhere, anyplace but at Rome. Are bureaucracies known to function in that manner?
Sorry if I seem to repeat, but I wonder if this seems plausible to anyone else.
The NYT has another story about Murphy today. Accusations are starting to come from the area around his family’s country home near the lake where he lived after he was removed from ministry,
No big surprise. Any idea he did not abuse for the 24 years he was in Superior informally helping out at parishes, schools, and even a juvenile detention center was naive in the extreme.
But Bertone seized on no further accusations as a reason no to go forward with the trial.
Here’s the link http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/us/03wisconsin.html?pagewanted=1
If I hear one more bishop complain about “mistakes”, well, I am at a loss for words. What about criminal negligence in failing to protect children and young people? Due diligence was non-existent.
On the Cantalamessa (“sing the Mass?”) sermon: As Friedrick Schiller once remarked, “Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.” (the gods themselves fight in vain against stupidity) — a line I know only because Marx quoted it.
If one were to write an account of this Vatican bumbling, any self-respecting publisher would almost have to label it as fiction — to which the author could only quote Anna Russell, in her marvelous send-up of Wagner’s “Ring” — “I’m NOT making this up!!!!”
Part of the beat going on: one article I saw summed up where we are at in the Church, I think: the number of cardina.s and bishops rushing to the Pope’s defense shows how deep the fear is running inside the hiierrachy.
If that’s the case, to get out the truth so necesary to the moving on that needs to get done will be evn more difficult!
SIDEBAR: More controversy. AB Rowan Williams has upset the Irish bishops by saying the Irish church has lost all credibility. The Irish bishops are rushing to their own defense. Williams apologized. See the NYT at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/world/europe/04church.html?pagewanted=2&hp
Happy Easter to everyone anyway.
clarification of earlier post. I certainly did not mean to suggest, with my Schiller quotation, that there was anything stupid about Cantalamessa the man. He may be of extraordinary intelligence. But bright people do and say boneheaded things, just as do those of us in the common herd. Look at Bill Clinton, for example.
Irony of ironies in the Rowan Williams statement. But let it be clear that he did not say that the Irish church has lost all credibility. He quoted someone who said that. So he was just reporting a fact. Perhaps he should have been silent but for bishops who believe Anglicans are second class Christians this was a new comeuppance laid on them by Canterbury.
Maybe the Vaticans and the bishops should start regarding ethics as more relevant than doctrine in a church which stresses and practices mediocrity. This sheds great light on the Anglicans move to Rome which is over doctrine not ethics.
I read R Williams’ remark as empathetic with what Irish priests are feeling just now. We are all saying that for our church to lose all credibility is a catastrophe for Irish society. Archbishop Martin should have welcomed the comment.
Indeed church spokesmen have lost all credibility. Every plausible denial seems to be followed by a damning new revelation that undercuts it.
Fr Cantalamessa has fed the “anti-semitic” meme back to the Pope in public, causing severe embarrassment — a punishment for his failure to stamp out that meme at the start.
Could the attack on the New York Times be itself subtly coded in an antisemitic sense? (Someone suggested that it may have been prompted by PR consultants!)
Ratzinger’s strong words on filth in the church on the eve of his election must now appear as an effort to spruce up his candidacy for the papal throne by throwing into oblivion his spotty earlier record and suggesting that he had undergone a total conversion to cleaning the Augean stables since 2002.
Cynical thought: if he did undergo such a conversion, could its main motivation have been to be worthier of the papal throne?
Cantalamessa is vigorously defended here:
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/the-catholicbashing-telephone-game.html#comments
Benedict is portrayed here as a martyr of the media: http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18
Messori defends Cantalamessa
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_aprile_04/messori_4f8a05e2-3fbe-11df-8d90-00144f02aabe.shtml
Ratzinger’s strong words on filth in the church on the eve of his election must now appear as an effort to spruce up his candidacy for the papal throne
Do you really believe that Cardinals were more likely to elect him if they thought he was going to attack the problem of sexual abuse by clergy? Of course not.
I notice that Abp Rowan Williams will write a letter of apology to Abp Martin. Cardinal Brady is out of the picture: Martin is de facto the leader of the church in Ireland.
Here in my parish, during the three liturgies of the Easter Triduum, I did not hear a single word about this crisis. No more than on the last few Sundays. I listen more and more impatiently to the homilies, to the Prayer of the Faithful: nothing. It’s business as usual, seemingly oblivious to the news. Last night the joyful liturgy felt disconnected from reality. I watched our seven adult baptisms and wondered: how can they be joining our church when it is being exposed as rotten?
I hope Pope Benedict comes out of his silence soon. For the present, we do not have a leader.
As for us personally, what can we do? If Christ lives in us, then, what do we do with His presence? Do we keep going with our lives, ignoring the news? I am not into political activism, and in my daily life I find that voting is sufficient action for me. But in the church, there is no voting.
Rowan Williams speaks for most Irish Catholics, according to a writer in the Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0405/1224267705469.html
The Archbishop of Paris has joined the chorus! http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/04/paris-archbishop-hits-out-at-smear.html
This is just dotty.
Claire –
There is VOTF, and some, I would say, less ratioanl groups such as We are Church. If you don’t like everything about a group you can try to change it. There is no such thing as a perfect human institution.
Some dismiss them as fringe groups. Of course, so long as relatively few Catholics become involved they will remain fringe. But at least they are trying. And as our own Carolyn Disco has shown us, one informed person can change a lot of thinking. Eventually the bishops will have to get the message.
I wonder when Anderson Cooper, who seems to love children, will do a week-long special on the scandal. That is the sort of thing bishops tend to notice. This week the president of VOTF appeared on CNN, and other officers of the group have appeared in other TV programs.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Fr. Anthony, OSB, who posts here, for speaking out loud and clear. It must be very difficult for a priest to do so when there are so few who do little except speak in generalities.
Speaking in generalities is, I think, a great part of the problem. The cardinals and bishops all speak in generalities, making apologies to all who have been injured. But they don’t name names. They do not say “I apologize to John Kelley who was raped by Fr; Lynch when he was an altar boy”. I don’t think there really is such a thing as a general apology. It’s just more Platonic nonsense that excuses people from dealing with the particularity of things, the individuality of each child. When Benedict actually spoke to some actual individual victims he did a huge amount of good. What VOTF does is deal with particulars, with cases one at a time. That is what the victims need.
“To just laicize or defrock and wash your hands is an added injustice.”
Bill, as I say, I’m sure you’re right about this – but as I mentioned before, I have no confidence in the church’s ability to monitor or manage the offenders over a long period of time.
“- the on-going education and annual re-education esp. for teenagers (VIRTUS) needs to be updated and made more realistic. There is no mention of priest abusers; no use of clerical situations of abuse in these training scenarios – it is all about volunteers, etc. The majority of abuse in the last 30 years in the US catholic church has been by priests – why no mention of this?”
I don’t think VIRTUS is for teens? Around here, it is for adults in ministry, professional and volunteer. I don’t know anything about how the program came about, but my recollection is that one of the goals is that it’s not just priests, it can be anyone. Perhaps they’re not striking the right balance in trying to get this across.