Put all anxieties from your mind or….. with friends like these who needs enemies?
The sturm und drang on dot Commonweal last week may not have great influence at the Vatican; certainly not the influence of those who surround the pope. Whatever Benedict’s ultimate actions in the sex-abuse scandal, it is becoming ever clearer that his “advisers,” “consultants,” and whomevers can completely destroy his papacy if left to continue on their current course.
Catholic Hierarchy Rallies Around Pope on Easter
“The remarks by the prelate, Angelo Sodano, a former secretary of state and the dean of the college of cardinals, came among a chorus of denunciations by church officials of what they have framed as a campaign of denigration of the church and its pontiff.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/europe/05pope.html?hp
Wasn’t Sodano the great defender of Maciel?
FYI: Here is Tim Shriver in the Washington Post on April 5: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/04/AR2010040402726.html
The Vatican’s spirited defense of Pope Benedict is not entirely misdirected. Sometimes it is helpful to put things in perspective, and to some extent, though not well expressed, that is exactly what the Cardinals Levada and Sodano are attempting.
If anyone cares to do so, they might go to the website of the Administration of Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Human Services. Here you will find a report entitled “Child Maltreatment 2008″. This report indicates that in 2008 there were 772,000 children in the United States that were “victims of abuse or neglect”, and of these 772,000 children, 9.1% or 70,000 were victims of “sexual abuse”
Now if we assume that 2008 was a typical year, then for the 30 year period during which priestly abuse has been identified, there would have been approximately two million cases of sexual abuse of children in the United States.
I don’t know how many such cases are alleged to have involved priests, but it is probably in the single digit thousands – certainly less than 1.0% of the total.
This is not in any way to excuse the horrifying behavior on the part of some priests, but where is the outrage over what has taken place in all other places where adults come in authoritative contact with children such as in public schools, the YMCA, scouting, protestant and other youth groups, foster homes, etc., etc.
So maybe the Vatican officials and the Cardinals have a truly valid point. Society has a far bigger problem than that which has been disclosed within our Church, and one can only wonder why our”newspaper of record” has zeroed in on a small, very small part of the problem while totally ignoring its true reality.
Both Cantalamessa and Williams seem to have gotten in trouble quoting friends, although from what I have read Cantalamessa was quite plainly agreeing with his friend. This reminds me of Benedict’s citing a Byzantine Emperor’s views on Islam, but then having to say that the Emperor’s views were not his views.
Public schools and the YMCA do not claim to represent Christ on earth, to authoritatively proclaim the meaning of salvation, and to define the requirements of faithful living before God. Beyond the horror of child abuse and the evil of cover ups and transfers, this issue won’t go away precisely because of the Catholic Church’s magesterial credibility is viewed by more and more people with each passing day as entirely shattered. Rowan Williams may be apologizing, but his words will not go away quickly. He said what many are thinking. This is a horrible and slow moving tragedy on so many levels.
The hope lies in millions of individual lives of faith and the communities that they create. There will be recovery, but what that recovery will give birth to remains to be seen.
I like this from today’s The Independent “The Pope has a friend in Father Christopher” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/christopher-jamison-the-pope-has-a-friend-in-father-christopher-1935431.html It is the kind of thing Sodano & Cantalsmessa should have told the Pope.
Margaret:
Whatever Benedict’s ultimate actions in the sex-abuse scandal.
Whatever his ultimate actions? He has already shown his ultimate action.
The Pope sets the tone and he has set the tone and style of response for his administration. (and yes that is how I view the Vatican now).
I debated on going to easter mass this morning but decided that we would for my own personal growth and transformation ( I will give Benedict credit for a good sermon in that regard) and to connect with my community. But as far as him being any kind of administrative leader that I respect – nope. The Vatican is not the church – it is simply a corporate entity which in my mind is for all intents and purposes already dead for me. But the Church lives in people striving to do the right thing, celebrating and gathering together in community. It was a good mass. I respect the priest who has been around for a long time.
I appreciate the tradition and spirituality of the Catholic faith but as for the administrative entity in Rome, including the current leader, well as Flannery O’Connor said, “Christ never promised that the Church would be run in a sinless or intelligent way”.
As for Charles’s point about families. Sure abuse happens in families. The community I go to is made up of people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale and I would guess that they have seen their fair share of sexual abuse, drug addiction, etc. etc. The issue is the response.
Like all those pathetic women who stay with their husbands after discovering that they have abused their children, the Vatican protects these people and in so doing is looked at by people the same way; weak.
Cardinal Ratzinger delayed and minimized the depth of the problem when he was in charge. We saw this in how the Maciel case was handled and, should it ever come to light ,in how all these other issues were handled. The central issue is values. When Fr.Bourgeois attended and supported the ordination of a woman to the priesthood, the Vatican gave him 30 days to change his position or face excommunication. (so much for the oft stated glacial pace of Vatican). When it perceives a threat, the Vatican can, and historically (under Ratzinger) has, moved quickly and forcefully.
The painful truth is that it just does not want to.
Instead blame everybody else.
Oh well…we cannot let that interfere with our own responsibilities for the faith. We cannot be “little ones” for too long, for being scandalized because in being scandalized we scandalize others.
But the leaders at the Vatican need help and I hope they get it.
Yes, Sodano was the great defender of Maciel, even putting out a press release that Maciel’s case had been dropped, causing all sort of consternation at the time.
The Times quotes him: “Holy Father, the people of God are with you, and do not let themselves be impressed by the gossip of the moment, by the challenges that sometimes strike at the community of believers,” Cardinal Sodano said.
Many other papers use “petty gossip” including our own David Gibson at http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/04/popes-abuse-record-defended-before-easter-mass/
Let’s the get the translators here busy with finding the original language to see if “chatter” or “gossip” or “petty gossip” is the correct interpretation.
In any case, Shoot foot; place firmly in mouth can easily be the motto, starting with Cantalamessa.
Charles Ladner’s comment is exactly the type of response Tom Reese complains about: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12225
The statistics get dicey too. There are about 45,000 priests in the country versus how many adults? I see outrage when local courts address child sexual abuse cases. As a former school board member we acted openly, and the documents were not hidden for decades in secret archives.
Would that the church had to deal with the same level of public accountability school districts must. It’s a self-excusing argument. Imagine going to confession, and saying, but all those others are doing it too. So what?
There are about 3 million teachers in the USA.
That fact, and the fact that children are abused is not relevant, and is a smokescreen.
The present scandal is not about priests that abuse, the Church has dealt with that.
The Present scandal is about Bishops who hid the abuse, and who still do, except in those countries where they are found out by prosecutors and newspapers.
A couple of Churchmen recognise, and have said, that the newspapers did them a favour. They had to deal with the problem. Maybe, just maybe, the newspapers are doing them a favour again, and just maybe a few Bishops will actually take responsibility for their past actions.
re line three. The Church has dealt with that in some Countries.
At the end of MSNBC report from Rome were the words, “more to come.”
Of course, Sodano is another part of (an old boys’s)PR machine, while Europe, in the throes of the abuse issue, saw many Bishops at least apologizing. But the Vatican Pr just keep the story moving full throttle.
I was surprised there were no comments on the Fr. Reese thread.
But i guess much of the discussion was and is determined by one’s starting points,
I think Fr. Reese got it right that the Church could have moved past all the ugly publicity if it had dealt properly with both clergy and hierarchy.
Still, I think the Dallas Charter and USCCB are not models and the comments of insiders on the review board from Justice Burke to Cafardi to McChesney show there’s a lot more that could and should be done.
And we get events at Easter even in Rockville Center where bishop Murphy (who endured a grand jury report that had awful things to say about the diocese there, not to mention incidents re Revs, Placa and Ribaudo) talking about throwing out “the filth”.
Hypocritical PR for many?
My own view is that good PR only takes you so far and Bob Schiefer on CBS had the best take today: the issue is not how good the PR is/was, but that poeple understand that abusing a child is a crime and act as if one really understands that.
Maybe that’s what Sodano should have told Benedict.
Bob N., there are comments beneath the Reese article on the America site, including some great ones by Carolyn Disco.
Carolyn, your comments here, on America, and beneath Maureen Dowd’s column (p. 18) are superb.
Gerelyn
I don’t have much to add except to agree with Margaret O’Brien Steinfels.
From my limited viewpoint far from the nerve center, it appears that the Pope and the Holy See are making every possible mistake to get themselves into deeper trouble. Who on earth is advising them? The damage to the Papacy could be devastating. In brief moments of anger that might seem like a good thing to some of us – and maybe it is the Spirit bringing about the collapse of sinful structures so that something more worthy of the Gospel can arise. But it is very sad if the Pope’s moral voice becomes so discreditded that no one takes him seriously seriously on war and people, economic justice, the environment, universal health care, and so many other issues. I’m too far from the center to do much (except pray, and post on Commonweal!). Is there anyone positioned to do some good in this growing disaster?
Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB
Jason Berry thought that Sodano might have pressured Ratzinger to halt the 1998 canon law case against seeking Maciel’s excommunication. In that case he, himself might have something to worry about as the world seeks more details about that whole matter.Here’s a link to a 2005 piece by Berry:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2005/1121/2944015584OP21RITEREAS
ON.html
Sorry the link above is incorrect try:
http://www.vowsofsilencefilm.com/news/IT_112105.pdf
As Carolyn Disco has pointed out many times, the abuse crisis is salutary in the sense that people see the need for change in the hierarchy of the church. Vatican II attempted to teach us to deal with the age of Constantine as the “Decline of Christianity” when the bishops sold out to the emperors and started to lead by coercion rather than persuasion and example. This empire which seeks its own power and money above all has to change. The church of dogma has to change to become the church of the Way of the Beatitudes.
The current Vatican shotgun approach reminds me of that old fundamentalist Protestant mantra:
The Bible said it
I believe it
That ends it.
The Vatican still seems to think that if they say something, the “faithful” will believe it because the clerical structure said it and, therefore, that will end it.
Porgy and Bess had it right: It ain’t necessarily so. The things that you’re liable (to hear from the Vatican, ain’t necessarily so.
Whatever money is being spent on spin control, PR and media control is money wasted! It is not working, and the harder they try (of, in the case of Sodano and Cantalamessa – don’t try) the worse it seems to get.
The look on the pope’s fact at the Easter Vigil mass was that of a man drained, tired and possibly thinking: how did I ever allow myself to get into this pile of s**t!
I keep trying to imagine what B16 would have to do to regain some credibility and authority.
For American’s I think the first thing he has to do is ‘fire” C. Law from the cushy job at the Vatican and send him back to America to face whatever fate befalls him.
Then for Ireland he has to take C. Brady’s seat away.
Then to send a message to all the other active Bishops who moved offending priests around he should tell them to “follow me” and with that submit his resignation.
There simply is no other way out of this mess.
Thank you George D. for expressing how I managed going to today’s mass.
Thank you too, to Carolyn D. for your posts here and at America
I do not know why we expect these cardinals to say anything else. The ones quoted either elected him or owe their ascent to him. But the outrage has come from below. There are others in high places who have yet to be heard from (including most of the “papabili”), and who will probably follow the church (us) on this. Neither they nor I am interested in divisions. I am concerned less with our leadership than with “what they have failed to do,” their failure to serve and be accountable to us.
Rather than listening to his circle of advisers, Pope Benedict might do better to follow his own advice to the bishops of Ireland.
1. Cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence, in particular by sending Cardinal Law back to the US.
2. Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore respect and good will… This must arise, first and foremost, from one’s own self-examination: For a start, review his encounters of cases of sexual abuse by clergy during his long career in the church, and tell us about them honestly and transparently.
3. Be close to his priests, and in particular to Father Lombardi who has not spoken to him since March 20!
Paul S. – I am not wishful of division but given the polarization among the “faithful” that may be impossible to avoid. More to the point however, please expand on your statement because I only see an internal conflict within your statement . You say you are “less concerned about leadership than with what they have failed to do …there failure to serve & be accountable to us”. But that is about leadership or lack there-of. Perhaps the problem is with the word “our”. What do you mean by that?
Time for a new conciliar movement, I’d say, before the last hierarch chops the last hole in the last watertight compartment of the Bark of Peter.
“The Vatican still seems to think that if they say something, the “faithful” will believe it because the clerical structure said it and, therefore, that will end it.”
Jimmy Mac –
Reminds me of:
JULIA; He could hear the cry of bats.
CELIA: But how do you know he could hear the cry of bats?
JULIA: Because he said so. And I believed him.
T. S. Eliot, “The Cocktail Party”, Act 1, Scene 1
BN: there are no comments on the Tom Reese article posted below because i didn’t enable the comment box.
Time for a new conciliar movement
There is a problem here. IF the Pope can fire Cardinal Brady, send Law back to america, etc., there will not be much “conciliar” feeling. And barring the intervention of the Holy Spirit, a council will just reaffirm the present hierarchical structure, and make those who oppose reform better able to resist it.
I am inclined to go with John Borst’s suggestions — a strong central authority dedicated to eradicating support for those who protect abusers. I suspect that will have to be under this Pope, but he has too strong a belief in shared power to force his opinion on the bishops. The immorality of abusing minors is the kind of doctrine the Vatican should be enforcing, not its usual quibbling about remarried Catholics. Imagine if any cleric involved in this immorality, even if indirectly by reassigning others, were forbidden to receive communion.
But if we leave it to the next Pope, that means electing someone who can exercise strong central authority, which will not sit well with conciliarists.
Sodano is only the tip of the iceberg. Trawl the neocath blogs and you’ll find much juicier stuff: http://hancaquam.blogspot.com/2010/04/strife-deceit-and-malice-media.html
The call for stronger centalized authority could not be more wrong. As Alberto Melloni wrote in Corriere della Sera: When things are going well in the Church we need hierarchy, when things are going badly we need communion.
I think Peg’s point is a good one. There are people working in the church who are knowledgeable public-relations professionals. Too often, their advice is ignored. Professional PR people know that credibility is all-important. They learn the landscape and cultivate relationships with journalists. Amateurs think that bluster, intimidation and half-truths can carry the day.
I haven’t made a study of it, but I suspect that in recent years, more than a few bishops have replaced knowledgeable PR people with amateurs who are more confrontational and strident in dealing with the news media.
Bishops have too often ignored sound PR advice from their own staff – essentially, that they be truthful and open – and instead followed advice from their attorneys and others. I don’t know Father Lombardi, the Vatican’s spokesman, but the comments I see attributed to him in news reports are level-headed and factual. His rational voice has been drowned by over-the-top commentary from bishops, cardinals, the papal preacher and others.
Do we need another council? I remember the excitement of studying theology in the 70’s. It felt to me and my peers that the Holy Spirit had truly led the Church at Vatican II. Reading accounts of the sessions it was obvious that the process was often acrimonious and unpleasant. According to Hans Kung, the Council, “was not able to control the curial machinery, but was constantly hindered, corrected, and sometimes even obstructed by the Roman Curia.” It wasn’t the curia who led the reform, so who were the heroes of Vatican II? Theologians like Yves Congar who had been previously silenced, and others who have been since, like Hans Kung, and male and female representatives of religious orders who attended the off-off Vatican discussions and provided valuable insights and opinions. Certainly John 23rd was the one who lit the fuse but it was the theologians and others who kept it lit. There were enough bishops willing to work for change, enough but not all. But it was certainly not the curia.
And today, who would lead a reform? Do we have any cardinals, any archbishops, any bishops whose careers could stand the scrutiny of a sexual abuse cover-up investigation? Do we have any theologians or religious left in the church who are willing to speak up and risk even more censure? Where would we search for signs of the presence of the Holy Spirit? Certainly not in the Vatican, and not among the American bishops who have given only lip service to their own “Guidelines.” In this resurrection time of year, where are the signs of life and hope in the Catholic Church? Maybe among the sexually abused and victimized, the silenced and excommunicated, the married ex-priests, the gay couples, the “anawim” of the Catholic community. And maybe we should call it Anawim I. My vote for the leader of this council would be Edwina Gately. Just a thought.
Cardinal Bernard Law’s current celebrity life in Rome is well known. He lives a comfortable and distinguished life. But what most people do not fully appreciate is that Cardinal Law is a frequent guest of honour at the English-speaking seminaries of Rome. He is regularly feted, wined and dined at the North American College and elsewhere, and in this photo sequence (follow link below) he can be seen as the guest of honour at the St Bede’s day celebration in 2009 at the Pontifical Beda College, where men from England, Australia, Africa and India are formed for priesthood. Should this be the example of a morally upright priesthood that is held up before the new generation of priests? I do not think so. It is a scandal.
http://picasaweb.google.com/photobeda/StBede2009
(This link is to the photo Picasa site of the Pontifical Beda College.)
I was sent an e-mail from a friend which made me want to write my own post on the sex abuse scandal, using his reflections on the matter… to further the discussion and hopefully add to it; what I say in it is open for debate, and is not meant to be a final word, but to really start looking at the matter in a complementary way… I hope some might find it interesting or useful as we all try to engage this serious problem: http://vox-nova.com/2010/04/05/the-spiritual-crisis-of-the-modern-world-and-the-sex-abuse-scandal-a-reflection/
WordPress, like usual, is acting odd; it will appear/disappear from the mainpage for sometime, but it is there and published, so if you click the link, you should see it even if it is not up on the main page of Vox Nova (anyone who blogs on wordpress know why this happens?)
Although there may be an apparent contradiction between the hierarchy and a councilor Church I would maintain there is not. What we have is a typical top down structure which behaves autocratically with respect to everyone with the exception of a small group of elite at the top.
Each of them has the authority of a potentate whether they choose to use it or not. There are times in every leader’s life, whether it is in a monarchy, dictatorship or parliamentary system a leader has to make choices to preserve the creditability of the system.
When they do, often surprising things happen. A Pope who exercises his authority over those he normally chooses not to, such as his fellow bishops, is more likely to cause a real councilor structure to be put into place. As it stands now it is a façade at the top and these keep in place a monarchical system of the king & his not so noble, noblemen. Once the noblemen see and feel the real authority structure some of them are act to rebel and find alternatives. Isn’t that what history has taught us. Why should the Church be any different?
I will withdraw my suggestion of a new council, in view of Mona Villarrubia’s cogent argument that the present talent pool is too small to make such a gathering likely to produce any solutions to our problems.
Before we all jump on a beleaguered Vatican, however, I’d like to suggest that at least one of its analyses of the present crisis is spot on: the baleful results of a culture of moral relativism and permissiveness.
Without moral relativism and permissiveness in Rome itself, how would it have been possible for the scandal of sex abuse to have been covered up and indeed permitted for so long, and for its enablers in high places not to be held accountable for their actions? (among which, let’s remember, in the USA alone, is running up bill of anywhere from $1.5 to $3 billion dollars, for which no one takes the blame or the responsibility).
What if the church was presented with a similar bill because of some sort of action by the state? (say, by eliminating tax-free status). The screams of anti-Catholicism would reach the heavens themselves
But when we do it to ourselves, it’s business as usual, and let’s concentrate on really important things, such as whether women should me among those having their feet washed on Maundy Thursday.
Nicholas and Mona, I not so sure the pool is a thin as it may appear. When John XXIII’d was elected Pope he was seen as a caretaker not as the revolutionary he became.
He released a pool of talent among the bishops and brought to the fore a group of theologians who previously had little authority. Commonweal from time to time demonstrates to us that they are out there.
Sometimes you have to risk a Council in order to reveal the new order. As it stands now we are being suffocated by the growing influence of those who want to retreat further and further into authoritarianism and close off further the wind of the Holy Spirit.
So Nicholas I think you had it right the first time.
Hans Kung was silenced? Obviously it didn’t work, eh? Can we legitimately complain about someone being silenced who clearly never tires of hearing himself talk?
Gee, maybe Richard McBrien will be silenced next.
Reading the above, I am beginning to see something that is also coming out of the Vatican….The Devil Made me do it………..It is almost being offered as an excuse.
If that is the case, then it is disgusting.
JC, there is more than one form of silencing. The use of sarcasm is one form.
I think the most important sentence in the entire Reese article is the following:
“Bishops have to be willing to sacrifice for the sake of the whole church.”
The Church encourages, asks for, even demands sacrifice of adherents. Where is there any spirit of sacrifice among bishops — either in willingly taking responsibility for what may well have been faulty advice or even actions of others, or in giving up position or rank or influence or otherwise losing face?
Margaret, a good point about his circle of advisers. We’ve discussed before how ill-served he appears to be served by them on gaffes covering on a wide range of topics, from rapprochement with the SSPX to his comment about AIDS and condoms.
Part of this thread is about a loss of hope in the awful reaction by Sodano and his curial friends to what’s happening.( I thought the note on Law and his influence was also quite pointed.)
Michal Sean Winters latest at America (send in Cardinal O”Malley) struck me as terribly simplistic n terms of the dynamics of what’s happening. Joseph Bottums apologetic at USA Today I think misses the point as it still identifies Church with hierarchy.
On the other hand, there are so many good things done by many clergy and laity that the Church is not going to fall apart or its message be undone by the fawning and excuses of its putative leaders.
It strikes me that what is happening is that leadership (not the Church) has lost, as Rowan Martin “hinted,” its credibility role and at this point, good or bad PR, are not going to get it back.
Real balance and truthfulness will need to be restored and I think Mona’s post on tthe current hope for that is clear eyed.
We are moving then to seeing Church differently though loyalists will try to prevent that from their highly top down view. So yes, it’s a “crisis”, a hierarchical Roman crisis, but as a number have said here, far better than me, a purifying one.
A crisis that may bring about a change from the Sodano (it’s about you and us,Holy Father) view to the note that Gene struck sp beautifully about Romero (that it’s about God being on the side of the victoims – people)
Nicholas, I’m not sure that moral relativism is the culture in the Vatican, unless it is moral relativism when an organization claims to speak the absolute Truth of God in moral matters but then does not hold itself accountable to that Truth in its own behavior. I think it is more an issue of moral absolutism combined with absolute hypocrisy.
“Vatican II attempted to teach us to deal with the age of Constantine as the “Decline of Christianity” when the bishops sold out to the emperors and started to lead by coercion rather than persuasion and example.”
Really? Can you be so kind as to reference which Vatican II document made that statement? Specific paragraph would be appreciated. Thanks in advance…
JC, you probably should have simply asked John Borst why he did not include the dissenters of the Church in the list of those things the Bishops need to address if they take their credibility and authority seriously.
“And barring the intervention of the Holy Spirit, a council will just reaffirm the present hierarchical structure, and make those who oppose reform better able to resist it.”
Barring the intervention of the Holy Spirit? I believe the presumption is that the Holy Spirit is always guiding the Church, in particular during ecumenical councils such as you are referring to here. To deny the eternal guiding action of the Holy Spirit as you seem to be doing here would put you in the same position (from the other side) as the heretics who deny the validity of the Second Vatican Council.
Not to use sarcasm, but I do wonder who is advising these guys?
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/to-arms-wdtprsers-to-arms-msnbc-libels-the-pope/
I wonder why, whenever I go to WDTPRS, it always crashes my browser unless I hit “stop” to the page? Something wrong with his page, some extra which crashes my computer.
Beyond that, though I have problems with Fr. Z. at times, he also sees that there are real issues at stake. I think most traditionalists do, actually. In fact, this is a time when traditionalists can find more common cause with liberals than one might otherwise find. Perhaps the mix of the Church is about to change once again…
Hidden in this report is a reference to Rainiero Cantalamessa’s comparison of attacks on the pope to anti-semitism. The Vatican quickly disassociated the pope from this claim. Cantalamessa conditionally apologized (“if anyone was offended”–uh, yes), and said the pope neither knew nor approved of what he was going to say. I have no doubt this is circumstantially correct, i.e., the pope did not vet his homily.
Nevertheless, Cantalamessa had every reason to think this comparison would meet with approval, because his comment was consonant with Benedict’s own earlier self-defense–in the Williamson affair. When an uproar ensued over Benedict’s rehabilitation of the anti-semitic SSPX bishop Williamson, Pope Benedict characterized the outcry as an irrational attack, comparable to the “hate” freely indulged in toward persecuted minorities (could this allusion have meant anything but the Jews?):
“Sometimes one has the impression that our society needs at least one group for which there need not be any tolerance; which one can unperturbedly set upon with hatred. And who dared to touch them – in this case the Pope – lost himself the right to tolerance and was allowed without fear and restraint to be treated with hatred, too.”
I am wondering in this particular dust-up about Archbishop Dolan, who is now the head of Jewish-Catholic relations in the United States. He ought to have made a statement about the Cantalamessa gaffe. I have not seen any reported; has there been one?
The response of Archbishop Ed O’Brien (Baltimore) on the other hand (reported in Whispers in the Loggia), is direct, excellent, and I have to say, a model for what a genuine, unequivocal response should look like:
“Father Cantalamessa’s words on Good Friday, somehow linking the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal with anti-Semitism, were unfortunate and reprehensible. They pose harm to Catholic-Jewish relations in Baltimore and around the world and I personally denounce them.
Rightly upset and embarrassed as we are by the scandal we are enduring as Catholics, as frustrated as we are by the sometimes unfair coverage in certain elements of the press, nothing justifies this insensitive, harmful and regrettable comparison.
On behalf of the Catholic Church in Baltimore, I offer apologies to our friends in the Jewish community, to victims of clergy sexual abuse, and to anyone offended by Father Cantalamessa’s personal views.”
Kudos to him. Maybe O’Brien should hold the job that has been given to Dolan.
F.Y.I.: The Moynihan Report with a copy of Father Cantalamessa’s Homily:
http://www.themoynihanreport.com/
It would be interesting to know who was NOT offended by the “personal views” expressed by the pope’s preacher. Which powerful groups? Which powerful individuals?
James Carroll, in Practicing Catholic, quotes Feeney:
“The Jews control the book publishing industry . . . They control the press, they control the news agencies. Witness their vicious propaganda campaign against Catholic Franco and for the Communists during the Spanish Civil War.”
http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/53-oct.html
The enemy of my friend is my enemy.
“Can you be so kind as to reference which Vatican II document made that statement?”
Paul,
If you read John XXIII’s Opening speech to the Council, you will pick it up. I would reference it for you. But with your apparent legalistic view of things you may not get it. Likewise with your comment about the Holy Spirit. The first seven Councils were called by Emperors. One might say the Spirit got a lot of resistance.
Councils are conducted by humans. Many of the documents of Vatican II were compromises. So, like most things, we have to discern the documents themselves. Not quote them blindly.
If the sarcastic ‘defenders of hierarchal faith’ can’t see a century of unbridled triumphalism crumbling before your very eyes … so be it.. the recent growing use of the cappa magna was the small sign of the ‘let them eat cake’ of the failing hierarchy. Cardinal Sodana, defender of Maciel, warmup of the Easter events, is another.. A large sinking ship has a whirlpool effect that sucks the survivors down,, swim now and quickly a safe distance away.. The Faith/Way will live on..
Paul, I was including, not excluding, the possibility of intervention by the Holy Spirit. My remarks meant to reflect what we could predict would happen at any council, and the impossibility of predicting where the Spirit could lead us.
For others, I see a clear choice available.
1> a centralized hierarchy led by an individual with a strong conviction
2> a dispersed authority structure, with many individuals with ultimate authority.
The problem is that 1 is needed to handle this crisis, ie fire bishops and cardinals, while 2 is the consequence of conciliar government. With 1, a single person, as Pope, can act effectively. With 2, all the authorities have to come to a consensus in order for change to be effected everywhere, and that generally takes longer.
Unless the Holy Spirit intervenes, inspiring an individual to change the world, as it inspired John XXIII to call a council, St Catherine of Siena to demand change of the Pope, etc.
F.Y.I.:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/edmund-burke-clerical-scandal-and-the-reign-of-terror/
Nancy
You really want the Easterners to leave? Well, at least I can say, we don’t have to accept apparitions, let alone, interpretations of them.
The filioque if properly understood is true; if understood within the context of popular visions? Well, we don’t say the filioque at my Church, and there is a good reason for that.
The rewarding of Cardinal Law with a plum job in Rome is not unrelated to the whirlwind aroung Benedict now. Benedict protected Law as he knew he had similar problems. It was convenient to call it an American problem without any basis. Now it is quite clear that it is a world wide problem. The problem is that the Vatican seeks to protect its reputation over the care of children.
Ed Gleason — spot on!
“If you read John XXIII’s Opening speech to the Council, you will pick it up.” “It” being this statement: “Vatican II attempted to teach us to deal with the age of Constantine as the “Decline of Christianity” when the bishops sold out to the emperors and started to lead by coercion rather than persuasion and example.”
Well, the full text of Pope John XXIII’s opening speech to Vatican II is here. There are no historical references to early Christianity whatsoever. In fact, the only historical reference points at all are to the Council of Trent and Vatican I. There is not even a way to read between the lines that would lead anyone to conclude that John XXIII, in this speech, was espousing a rejection of some sort of “declining” church that arose after the Edict of Milan.
To paraphrase Kurt Cobain, “Smells like the Spirit of Vatican II”…
““Sometimes one has the impression that our society needs at least one group for which there need not be any tolerance; which one can unperturbedly set upon with hatred.”
Rita –
I do feel sorry for the Pope. But the problem is we haven’t heard any details about the accusations from *him*. Does his silence mean he just isn’t ready to talk? Or does it mean that there really is nothing more to say? Or does it mean that he is still thick as a plank?
It really doesn’t matter about his mistakes/guilt/whatever. It’s what remedial steps he’ll take that will count. Actions still speak louder than words.
(Anybody besides me reminded of Shirley Jackson’s, “The Lottery”?)
Paul,
Here is the relevant passage. “It cannot be denied, however, that these new conditions of modern life have at least the advantage of having eliminated those innumerable obstacles by which, at one time, the sons of this world impeded the free action of the Church. In fact, it suffices to leaf even cursorily through the pages of ecclesiastical history to note clearly how the Ecumenical Councils themselves, while constituting a series of true glories for the Catholic Church, were often held to the accompaniment of most serious difficulties and sufferings because of the undue interference of civil authorities. The princes of this world, indeed, sometimes in all sincerity, intended thus to protect the Church. But more frequently this occurred not without spiritual damage and danger, since their interest therein was guided by the views of a selfish and perilous policy.”
That spiritual damage occurred most poingnantly with Constantine since now it was politically correct to join Christianity where all the favors of the emperor were bestowed. Etc.
Yes, there are now some cracks in the Vatican’s walls. The first to attack publicly was AB Robinson of Australia. Then some German bishops, including Schoenbrun. Now AB O’Brien of Baltimore. I pray it snowballs.
Was embarrassed by MSW’s latest America posting. If he truly believes that, he has a lot of learning to do.
Here is an interview with Rev. Thomas Doyle over the Easter Week-end: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2010/04/father-tom-doyle-uncensored.html
Highlights:
“FATHER TOM DOYLE: There’s nothing heretical about seeing corruption and calling it to be what it is and demanding that something be done to change it. And if you look at this issue, you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of human beings that have been raped and pillaged and devastated by clergy, and to make it worse it’s been covered up. That’s not heresy, that’s truth.”
“Well, I want to just make a distinction. There’s the institutional Church, which is the governing structure – the bishops, the priests and so on – that’s not the whole Church by a long shot. The Church is the people. Whether they’re in there on Sunday or not, they’re the people, and that’s what will fix it – it will be the people themselves and it will happen because of pressure from outside, from the courts, the media. Generally, societal outrage will force some change. The system can’t fix itself. If it could have done that, it would have done it, but it can’t, because it’s a monarchy and the whole concept of a monarchy in the 21st century is completely anachronistic. And so that will start, I think, the change – it will have to – because the system is changing, the Church itself is changing drastically, and many of the people at the top are afraid to admit that because that means their power structure is going to change.
In one of the earlier blogs on this topic, I stated that folks such as Allen, etc. see B16 as our best hope. My questions then as now – does he have the will to change the curia? Does he have the ability to find and use the folks who get it?
To date – there is no evidence that Ratzinger can make the difficult decisions and live through a Good Friday experience and rise on the other side. The Sodano episode at the peak religious experience of the church’s liturgical year was a travesty and only underscores what Fr. Doyle is stating about the institution. Finally, B16 is an academic – not sure he even trusts his advisors; he works alone; he writes well but this crisis requires a wise and understanding person who has the penultimate relational skills necessary to stand up to an embedded, corrupt system. His track reocrd gives me little hope.
“Does his silence mean he just isn’t ready to talk? Or does it mean that there really is nothing more to say? Or does it mean that he is still thick as a plank?”
Maybe it means his people keep him in the dark and he allows himself to be kept in the dark. He is intimidated by confrontation and has never been forced to overcome that fear. If you or I or anybody else were on his staff, we would protect him too. The discomforts and terrors of old age are hard enough that the temptation to think he should be left alone to study and write and play his piano now.
It is really impossible not to love Pope Benedict. But only in the way you let your dog, when he has done a lifetime of faithful service (within his canine limitations) sleep in the sun on the best furniture. Then you really have to go find a strong, vigorous dog who can protect the house or the bad guys will break in and nobody will ever sleep peacefully there again.
… temptation to think he should be left alone now must be irresistible.
“The enemy of my friend is my enemy.”
Why?
Perhaps your friend is mistaken about who the enemy is. Or perhaps both your friend and their enemy are mistake about something? Either way, we are called to find a way to love. “Enemy” is a very worldly approach. Love is the Christian response.
Bill, thanks for the referral to the specific passage. I can discern the reference to some “undue interference”, but that passage still does not condemn 1600 years of Church history as the “decline of Christianity”, not by a long shot. My point is that if we want Catholics to take Vatican II to heart, we should always try to remain truthful to the text and literal meaning of what the Council promulgated, and not extend the teachings beyond the clear meaning of the text. To do so would be a disservice to the valid and important teachings of the Council, by allowing opponents of the Council to brand us as extremist in our interpretation.
In that sense, it is certainly true, as you point out, that John XXIII intended to open the windows and clear out some stale air from the church, including its relation to secular power, but not true that John XXIII condemned the post-Constantine church as Christianity in decline. Vatican II was not a discontinuity from the pre-Vatican II church, but an organic development arising from it.
Major cultural change — and that is precisely what is needed now — must be initiated from the top of any organization that’s been historically perceived as successful.
Trouble is, “the top” generally cannot be trusted to bring about the steps needed for such change. The folks at “the top” are too heavily invested in the cultural status quo. They have seen themselves as successful in maintaining a successful enterprise.
Will Catholic pewsitters (i.e., dues-payers) sit idly by while Rome continues to resist criticism and further investigation? The Vatican depends on such people. Money from around the world flows from parishes to bishops to the pope.
In the Church of Rome, money is the only effective leverage that can be exercised by the people — but only if enough of the contributors stop tithing and other forms of giving to local parishes and sees.
Tithing = Enabling.
To change Roman Catholic institutional culture, we must see the complete removal/resignation of existing top management, not to mention those local hierarchs who have continuously kowtowed to the Vatican and been its errandboys.
Anything less will only see continuation of the same old sick, sinful, dysfunctional clerical culture responsible for the sexual abuse and other institutional crap brought to light (by the press) in recent years.
Will the pewsitters be up to this task.
I’m not optimistic.
Altargate! I love it!!
Jim McK said: ” — he (B16) has too strong a belief in shared power to force his opinion on the bishops.”
One of the major and now painfully obvious downsides to “shared power” is “diffused/diminished/disappearing responsibiliy and accountability.”
“but only if enough of the contributors stop tithing and other forms of giving to local parishes and sees”
So, we should punish the poor who will not receive as much charity due to decreased support by parishioners? Why should the poor of today pay for the decades-old sins of predator priests and their enabling bishops? Don’t the poor have problems enough without being used as pawns in a power game between the laity and clergy?
“I wonder why, whenever I go to WDTPRS, it always crashes my browser —”
Henry, it is the Holy Spirit or your guardian angel protecting you from near occasions of sin and falling into grevious moral error.
“Vatican II was not a discontinuity from the pre-Vatican II church, but an organic development arising from it.”
Your view is an opinion of the church of dogma which most of us have been indoctrinated with. The church of dogma is such a sad development since it is characterized by Christians killing and ridiculing other Christians who in their view did not adhere up to doctrinal beliefs. Continuity is an impossible position. The real continuity is in the beatitudes and mercy over sacrifice. Church apologetics when subjected to even a cursory review is the most convoluted explanation bordering on absurdity and irrationality. Orthodoxy must give way to orthopraxy, which is the emphasis of Jesus.
Paul:
There are many Catholic services outside of the parish/diocesan structures that provide excellent, comprehensive and far-reaching services to the poor.
Diverting your money from situations that are unresponsive, repressive, self-serving, self-protecting, abusive and designed to perpetuate the status quo into those that take their mandate of charity and love seriously is a good and holy thing to do.
To name but a few –
Catholic Charities http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org
Catholic Relief Services http://www.catholicrelief.org
Catholic Worker Movement http://www.catholicworker.org
Christian Foundation for Children and Aging http://www.cfcausa.org
Catholic Medical Mission Board http://www.cmmb.org
Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA) http://www.cnewa.org
Society of St. Vincent de Paul various locations and websites
P.S., I said nothing that would indicate I want the Easterers to leave. On what do you base that statement?
Bill,
what Paul meant to say was “Nicea was not a discontinuity from the ante-Nicene church, but an organic development arising from it.”
At least, and maybe only in my opinion, that is the argument that makes sense in context.
Nancy,
Odd, earlier I could have sworn I saw some sort of filioque post from you today; did I somehow see something wrong (I don’t see it now)? Very odd.
Well, I suppose it is only logical to assume that if we believe in the Unity of God, and we believe that The Father and The Son are of the same essence, Perfect Love, then The Father and The Son exist in a Perfect, Complementary, Relationship of Love, and thus The Holy Spirit, The Love Between The Father And The Son, must proceed from both The Father and The Son.
I can’t help thinking that the reason the pope hasn’t commented is that he feels he’s above it all and doesn’t need to explain himself.
I was reminded of an old article from 2005 during the papal elections by Joan Chittister. She wrote about how to change the papacy ….
First, the speakers suggested, a pope, like other leaders, both ecclesiastical and civil, should have a term limit ….. the curia itself must be abolished ….. the church needs another Ecumenical Council to look at the very nature of the church itself in a modern world ….. Finally, speakers called strongly for “increased authority and participation for women in the church.”
Nancy:
What about the Holy Spirit, who is of the same essence of the Father? Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Holy Spirit? I am not going to get into the filioque debate here, but I will warn you — don’t ignore the personal differences, and how Augustine himself saw the procession from the Son was a gift to the Son from the Father, and not an issue of nature (otherwise, the Spirit would proceed from the Spirit).
The filioque is often misunderstood by those in the West as well as those in the East. There is a reason why it was forbidden to be used, even in the West; it was in its time, a liturgical abuse which eventually became the norm in the West. There were good reasons for its use, in its time, but way misunderstood outside of that context.
The truth is, I never was very good at logic, but then I saw this Light.
Henry Karlson: Nancy Danielson has a marked tendency to distract from the topic and even to be silly. I have deleted some of her comments on this post. If you want to respond to her silliness, would you e-mail her directly. You can see her e-mail address by rolling your mouse over her name at the top of her comment. Thanks.
Sorry if you find the Filioque “silly” Margaret. Perhaps you can explain the correlation between those who have brought scandal to His Church and those who claim His Church is no longer valid because of those who have brought scandal to His Church? Has the essence of The Word as He Has Revealed Himself to His Church changed because of the scandal or is The Truth still The Truth?
MOBS: See what I mean???? Off topic… you Ms. Danielson are silly, not the filioque question!
Mr. Flanagan — I don’t think anyone is suggesting punishing the poor by withholding contributions to the Church. Aren’t there lots of charities to which one can give that are unaffiliated with the Church, and do wonderful work with the poor? Think of all the foodbanks, housing agencies like Habitat, various causes for the disabled, for the homeless, to say nothing of hospitals, United Negro College Fund — the list goes on and on.
Charity Navigator http://www.charitynavigator.org/ does an evaluation of charities from an enormous list. For that matter, I think that Catholic Charities, especially if you accompany a gift with a letter stating how you wished your gift used (for homelessness, for instance) is bound to use your contribution as you direct, or risk losing their tax free status.
The Pope has allowed the “Pope as persecuted Jew” meme to circulate freely. Rita Ferrone points out a more telling connection in that toe-curlingly embarrassing letter he wrote about the Williamson affair. One might even go back to his speech at Auschwitz in which he portrayed the German people as simply the victims of the Nazi cabal. There are probably deep historical roots to this line of defense.
I just saw the video of a US war crime in Iraq on Andrew Sullivan’s site. There will be no proportionate outrage about this — so the Church, if it wants to use the tactic of whataboutery, could well argue that it is the target of selective indignation.
“whataboutery”
A good word.
This is the devil at work, trying to disrupt the positivity of the Easter Season! It is very difficult to stand up for the Catholic faith right now with all of this bru ha ha going on in the media. I am not condoning nor denying the despicable actions of those priests, but what good will be gained by parading it around in the media circus?
“I don’t think anyone is suggesting punishing the poor by withholding contributions to the Church. Aren’t there lots of charities to which one can give that are unaffiliated with the Church, and do wonderful work with the poor? Think of all the foodbanks, housing agencies like Habitat, various causes for the disabled, for the homeless, to say nothing of hospitals, United Negro College Fund — the list goes on and on.”
Yes, there are a lot of worthwhile charities to which we can contribute – the need exceeds the available funds for most of us. But even though tax authorities classify donations to the church as a form of charitable contribution, we should not understand it that way. Simply put, our checks and envelopes support the church’s mission – a mandate with strong biblical roots. By withholding support for the church, we are refusing to support its mission. I urge all of us to think very carefully about this – in fact, to continue to find a way to support the mission of the church in a way that doesn’t trouble our consciences.
I don’t think Nancy’s posts should be deleted. They’re not offensive. It doesn’t matter when they’re off-topic – people can just ignore the off-topic asides. As long as they don’t drown the other comments, I see no reason not to leave them up. What’s the moderating policy on this blog?
I am tempted to try some irony about secret cover-up of unwelcome comments!
I tried to post a comment once on Abp Dolan’s blog, correcting a couple of facts he got wrong about Pope Benedict and the Munich scandal. My comment was never published. It made me wonder how the moderator chose what to filter.
Amiga asks: “what good will be gained by parading it around in the media circus?”
The answer is a lot of good if it gets the leadership of this Church to accept that it too has to accept responsibility for its role in making the pedophile situation worse and for tarnishing the image of the spiritual Church in the process.
I know in Canada investigative journalism especially that related to TV journalism is termed the 5th Estate even though Newspapers are considered the “Fourth Estate”. Together as the “media” bring a much needed balance to society as against the 1st (clergy) 2nd (nobility) & 3rd (commoners) estates. See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate
The Vatican & the clergy may not like being in the “media” bulls-eye but they deserve to be there and they shouldn’t be whining about it.
Two “Nancys” gone in the meantime!
“By withholding support for the church, we are refusing to support its mission.”
No, we are not refusing the mission–we are refusignto support the mission through the Church, whcih is not the same thing.
I donate all money I previously donated to the Church to SNAP.
Margaret, perhaps you could delete the additional comment that was placed on my comment at 4:28 by some moderator that begins with MOBS…least I feel offended
Time to move on and close the shop for the day!