Whither and Why?
Timothy Radcliffe on discernment:
Why go? If it is to find a safer haven, a less corrupt Church, then I think that you will be disappointed. I too long for more transparent government, more open debate, but the Church’s secrecy is understandable, and sometimes necessary. To understand is not always to condone, but necessary if we are to act justly.
Why stay? I must lay my cards on the table; even if the Church were obviously worse than other Churches, I still would not go. I am not a Catholic because our Church is the best, or even because I like Catholicism. I do love much about my Church but there are aspects of it which I dislike. I am not a Catholic because of a consumer option for an ecclesiastical Waitrose rather than Tesco, but because I believe that it embodies something which is essential to the Christian witness to the Resurrection, visible unity.
From the current Tablet (with thanks to RM).
I’m a great admirer of Radcliffe — imagine what the church might be if we had men (to say nothing of women) of his intellect, integrity and character in the papacy, the Vatican, and the world’s dioceses.
But unfortunately we don’t. Thus the church’s leadership, whose business it should be to strengthen our faith, has become for many an insuperable stumbling block, and a spur to the massive de-evangelization that has been with us for decades. Rome, however, still likes to think the villain is secularism (and, of course, “misinterpretations” of Vatican II), looking everywhere but internally to rectify the situation. Rather like Alan Greenspan this week blaming everyone but his Fed for the financial crash.
As long as this situation is allowed to continue, aren’t more and more people likely to continue to see a contradiction between their loyalty to Roman Catholicism, as the center construes it, and the demands of Christianity? And who are we to say, in the current state of affairs, that they are wrong?
Putting a stop to the current round of sycophancy emanating from Rome and its branch offices would be a good start. So would a genuine listening to Catholics outside the charmed inner circles, men and women who genuinely want to help the church, rather than just walking away.
Hope is a great virtue. But it needs a few signs to keep it green.
This article doesn’t bring much to the table and it has too many “but”s for my taste. Not helpful.
Nothing that I will write is intended in any way to lessen our horror at the evil of sexual abuse. But the statistics for the US, from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, suggest that Catholic clergy do not offend more than the married clergy of other Churches.
Have not our bishops been shockingly irresponsible in moving offenders around, not reporting them to the police and so perpetuating the abuse? Yes, sometimes. But the great majority of these cases go back to the 1960s and 1970s.
Angry and hurt Catholics feel a right to transparent government. I agree. But we must, in justice, understand why the Vatican is so self-protective. There were more martyrs in the twentieth century than in all the previous centuries combined.
I too long for more transparent government, more open debate, but the Church’s secrecy is understandable, and sometimes necessary.
I have deepest respect and affection for Christians from other Churches who nurture and inspire me. But this unity in Christ needs some visible embodiment. Christianity is not a vague spirituality but a religion of incarnation
We may be embarrassed to admit that we are Catholics, but Jesus kept shameful company from the beginning.
OK, so you don’t have to agree with anything the church does to want to be part of something that is “essential to the Christian witness to the Resurrection, visible unity.”
Of course, one could also argue that the church undermines the whole idea of unity at least as much as it embodies it, with all its “not quite churches, but more like sort of something in the nature of *ecclesial bodies* in a manner of speaking” talk of other Christians.
What a wonderful article. Thank you!
One comment I would make: Fr. Radcliffe’s article suggests that the alternative to Catholicism would be another Christian denomination. True; but my observation is that many who leave the church become, in a sense, churchless, holding on to personal belief and spirituality, but without community expression.
I’ll put in a word in favor of Radcliffe, whose thoughts may be closer to my own than anything else I have read on the subject recently.
Thanks for linking to this piece…I’m a great fan of Radcliffe’s, but something about this essay seems uncharacteristically flat. God knows this is a difficult if not impossible topic to address.
My answer about remaining Catholic has become simpler, and perhaps more simplistic over time — the Eucharist, which the visible church makes possible through its various functions. Unity is very important, but I think that is a squishy term these days; or perhaps a reductive one, reduced to the visible unity with the hierarchy or the pope. (Which is of course important.)
But I think there is also the issue of engagement, and living with the tensions and ambiguities and not fleeing them, any more than we can flee our flawed selves. The Catholic Church provides that, and few other churches are free from it. So good luck for pilgrims who go searching.
In any case, there is more here to say than I can properly muster, even in the best of times.
I liken it [where else question ] to our smelly US government and educational system.. When you meet the team members individually they are all above averge people but on the field, the ‘chemistry”, makes the team look like losers. As Peter said.. “but where would we go Lord’ … The ‘team’ is always quite a bit less than the sum of its parts..
KFCC
Thank you. I’ll echo David’s comment about the Eucharist. Maybe somehow this forces us all to re-examine why we are really here, which can be very fruitful.
This is just one of many pieces across the media and the internet of why stay/leave.
Then there’s Andrew Bacevich talking about remaking the Church from the non-hierarchs, including voices from folks at Comonmweal.
MSW at America thinks The Boston Cardinal can be the “fixer.” he needs to read bacevich.
Right now, I think, there’s a call for a huge more dollop of honesty and a lot less PR as folks try to come to grips!
Focusing on the weak Church where we are all sinners (true) doesnt sound much like the “spotless bride” image that some had trumpeted in trying to buttress the institution.
The real picture today is a large group of Catholics moving further away. The divisions that have played out across many issues within will not be helped by the events of recent days , nor will a call for “smaller, purer” Catholicism be of any help.
So I agree the centrality of Eucharist is what binds us – to a big tent Church of suffering folks trying to work it out.
Which leads me to say that if leadership is important, it too must admit fully its weaknesses and that goes for BXVI, who man ystill seek to protect. And it also means a movement to beleivable governance.
The only way I might be tempted to leave would be if the discrepancy between discourse and reality was so great that prayers sounded hollow. On Easter day, as my parish continued business as usual, studiously continuing to ignore the sexual abuse crisis even during the general Intercessions, I thought briefly: “what am I doing here?”.
My pastor is silent, my bishop is silent (which, in his case, might be better than speaking up), and our pope is absent, away in his elevated world of ineffable thoughts. His advice to Irish bishops, to carry out “decisive action” with “complete honesty and transparency” arising from “self-examination”, seems more and more hollow given his prolonged silence about himself.
But I agree with David that the Eucharist holds us together. In addition I think of our church as transcending the present time: my community of faith includes all the people who have preceded us in the past, and who will follow us in the future. When I think of the many saints of our history and of the people in my family who are now deceased, I am happy to be in communion with them. The occasional Latin chant at Mass brings it home powerfully.
The other things that give meaning to our prayers and prevent them from ringing hollow are the good works on the church. Its work with the poor gives me hope.
Those reasons to stay Catholic have very little to do with today’s church hierarchy, and I don’t think (except sometimes in fleeting moments of doubt) that they’ll be able to destroy my Catholic faith.
Thank you, Claire.
So many excuses for Vatican self-protection, secrecy, and “they’re old cases.”
What do martyrs have to do with molesting priests and complicit bishops?
Necessary secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse? Clerical versus legal interpretations of that are simply scary.
Old cases are less material? The German bishops’ hotline was overwhelmed last week with 4,000 calls the day it opened, and are up to over 13,000 calls now. Denmark and Norway starting to report.
Radcliffe is certainly an impressive person and writer. I heard him speak. But frankly, he is not knowledgeable or convincing when it comes to clergy sexual abuse.
In December he wrote in the London Times how “widespread sexual abuse of minors seems mainly to characterise English-speaking countries . . . It represents the weakness of a particular tradition within the Church” not seen in Latin America, Africa or Asia.
I was stunned to see such lack of understanding.
David’s response stands out: it’s the Eucharist.
The problem I found with the piece is that unity, by itself, is not enough. It’s only one of the four marks of the church after all, and as Mark notes above, isn’t much like our experience, with so many divisions within the church and so many anti-ecumenical moves these days emanating from Rome.
When one is in a position of finding tenuous the claims to holiness (“filth” and the manifest unwillingness to do what’s needed to clean it up), catholicity (the church increasingly looks like a sect, where only very narrow interpretations of critical issues are tolerated), and apostolicity (how much or little do we really embody apostolic faith?), it gets a little hard to fall back on unity.
This having been said, Radcliffe does make a good point. Unity SHOULD be something we are willing to make sacrifices for, and something of a wonder and a sign of Christ’s presence. I’m in favor of people hanging in there. Yet overall the essay didn’t persuade me. I think he’s right, but it’s not enough. As Claire noted, too many “buts.”
For me, the reasons why scandals in the Church do not cause me to want to leave it (even if I want it to be reformed) is two-fold: one is logical, that the giver of truth does not have to be a moral person (hence the reason why ad hominems are fallacies), and the second is all that goes into play in the rejection of Donatism (which connects with the first, but adds various dimensions based upon sacramental grace).
Why stay?
It’s cultural. Imprinted. Like being Italian-American, African-American, Irish-American, German-American, Mexican-American, etc.
(Maybe I don’t live in the old neighborhood/parish anymore, but this time of year takes me back to the days when the local drugstore sold dyed baby chicks, and everyone dressed up for Easter Mass, and the great choir belted out the Vidi Aquam, and Victimae Paschali Laudes, and Resurrexit, Sicut Dixit, ALLELUIA!)
Thanks for the many thoughtful–even eloquent–comments so far in this thread. I agree that the glue that binds us is the Eucharist, especially the opportunity to experience directly the Real Presence. I’d also add that the sometimes least conspicuous member of the trinitarian Godhead, the Holy Spirit, provides another common bond among us. BXVI (no comments, please :) ) has said that the Holy Spirit is the “soul of our souls” that quietly initiates and animates our deepest yearnings for contact with God. I think the Holy Spirit is also the soul of the collective souls of the entire Body of Christ, often working in seemingly imperceptible ways to guide the Church. I work hard to keep that in mind in these troubled times for the Church, and it is of some consolation that others have likely thought the same way during other tribulations for the Church during the past two millennia.
If the revelation that people, even in the Vatican, are human and therefore sinners is sufficient to have people question their Catholic faith, I have to wonder how much faith was there to begin with. What, did you put your faith in man?
I suppose it’s a matter of perspective.
I’ve kept my Catholic faith, which I do not equate with official membership in the Church of Rome. For now, I remain a Catholic, an unchurched Catholic, a primitive Catholic, a Catholic in faith.
But I left because of Benedict, who is supposed to be a symbol/promoter of unity. He is anything but.
Even without the clerical sexal abuse revelations, I would have left the institutional church. Indeed, I do not recall mentioning this issue in my letter of departure to my former pastor.
Other churches, I have come to believe, have “the Eucharist”. And I’m not referring just to the Orthodox churches or to the Anglican communion. Other Christians (not all, of course) believe they receive the body and blood of Christ in holy communion. As one writer noted on his blog, the earliest Christians believed the WHAT of the eucharist; they were not preoccupied with trying to figure out the HOW.
The decision to stay or to leave is a deeply personal, heartfelt one. B16 is tearing this church apart in order to salvage/promote a Tridentine/imperial/triumphalist culture that is at the heart of the rampant sexual abuse exposed to light of day in recent years. Thank God for the media.
If you’ve decided to stay in, I would only hope you seriously consider diverting your weekly/monthly tithes to worthy causes, Catholic or otherwise, that help people in need. There is also the possibility, as I’ve suggested elsewhere, of parishioners setting up financial accounts — not touchable by the hierarchs — to take care of parish expenses and social services outreach. To give money directly or indirectly to your bishop (and thence to Rome) is, to me, a form of enabling continued ecclesial dysfunction.
God knows, enough innocent lambs have been sacrificed on the altars of perversion found in sacristies, rectories, church basements, campgrounds, etc.
If you’re gonna’ stay, please, do not enable.
I think of the people, like the nun who taught me in high school, a farm girl from Kickapoo, Illinois. She joined an order of German teaching nuns, got sent off to be educated at Oxford, opened the beauties of both faith and reason to us mugs on the South Side of Chicago, and connected us emotionally and intellectually to a 2000 year old, worldwide religious tradition.
But I think staying means committing to busting up the absolute monarchy one way or another — the papacy and hierarchy that cripple the Church by forcing it to remain antiquated, unrepresentative, unjust, deaf to the lived experience and wisdom of the faithful, intellectually bankrupt, and dangerous to its own.
I stay because I believe the RCC is truly the Church founded by Jesus, my most gentle and generous brother who is most amazingly also the Word, the Son of the Father. I stay because the Holy Spirit is there/here in a special way, though I certainly don’t always understand Her actions. The Church is a Mystery, but a mystery which explains at least to some extent this simultaneously hideous and beautiful world. For me, what is most compelling, however, is the fact of God’s grace, that spiritual energy available to all of us most particularly in — yes — the Eucharist. That grace is often as palpable as the grass on the ground. Like an empirical given, it is just there. And so is the Church, even when we wish it would go away.
One of the sadnesses I have about all this talk we hear concerning “staying and going” is that for so many people, they feel this is the only “vote” they have; their choices come down to this: “stay or go.” I’m afraid that this way of thinking plays into some of the worst impulses of our dominant culture. “Love it or leave it,” “Put up or shut up,” etc. Most people who are dismayed don’t want to go, they want the church to get better, they want healing, resolution, better relationships, more justice, more faithfulness. Leaving may remove some of the pain, but it doesn’t achieve these other things. Yet people have been led to feel it’s their only option in a church that doesn’t listen to them, or respond to good-faith efforts at reform and renewal.
It’s a little bit like having a marriage with problems, and feeling the sole alternative is divorce, which any good counselor will tell you is only what you do when all other avenues have been exhausted. So while talk about “staying and going” may be salutary in one way, to keep people aware of their freedom and autonomy and avoid a victim mentality, it can also if approached without exploring all other options actually make us feel more powerless to achieve what we really want.
Very important point, Rita. What would you suggest we do besides pray?
Joseph, with all due respect (this is a friendly comment), you are not “an unchurched Catholic” or “a primitive Catholic.” You can’t put that toothpaste back in the tube. You have had too many years immersed in a very developed church culture, no matter how much you reject it, and have been too active and self-aware a participant in that church, to ever use the label “primitive” or “unchurched.” I think you must find other words, because these are not descriptive. I am not arguing against your experience, only the vocabulary.
Joseph Jaglowicz: What do you mean that you’re “an unchurched Catholic, a primitive Catholic, a Catholic in faith”? And on what basis do you think Benedict is tearing the Church apart?
And Joseph and Jeanne: do you want to rid the Church of all hierarchy? Any successful organization needs some kind of structure of authority, doesn’t it? What would you have instead?
Ann, I am a big believer in small communities and non-violent action. I think developing faith-centered relationships in units smaller than the parish but different from the family makes us stronger, wiser, more creative, and more resilient. Out of such communities, I think some non-violent but effective actions for change could indeed come.
Beautiful, William and Rita, Ann, Jeanne. I too stay because I feel called, despite the persecution. I myself have reaped so many graces and blessings because of the Church. I have met so many wonderful people with whom I can truly unite. I love our faith, I love the Church, I love my parish. The Eucharist fortifies me. Even thinking of leaving tears me apart. It hurts that so many have left because they have lost hope that things have gotten and will continue to get better. They have lost more than they will ever know, and we have lost unity with them. I would like to see more outreach and ministry to those people.
Doesn’t, say, the Greek Orthodox Church (and other Orthodox Churches) have the Eucharist?
Matt, the modern world abounds with many other effective structures of governance besides the divine right, absolute monarchy. All other Catholic institutions (hospitals, universities, social service agencies) manage to run themselves without it. Religious orders elect their leaders all the time. We need to consider those possibilities. Of course the Church will face the challenge of modifying its governance as it continues to operate, much like fixing the engine of a boat as it sails on the sea. But it can be done. I would start with the involvement of the faithful in the selection of its priests, the election of bishops (an old and fine Church tradition), the recovery of the role and voice of the bishops, reform of the Curia, especially the CDF and its sanctions, recovery of the role of the faithful in Church governance, the de-emphasis of the papacy, the use of argument rather than proclamation, and a general dose of humility all around.
Another reason to not give up on the Catholic Church: the hats. Face it, we got the best hats going. Gotta love it.
I was bred and born into this church, educated in and by it, and, like so many “of a certain age” found it to be dry, obstructive and rule/hide-bound. So I walked away in my mid-20s. I walked for 23 years to be exact. I had to rediscover Christianity in a non-denominational church pastored by a former Mormon. Only after that was I able and willing to reconsider Catholicism. I was not of the Protestant temperament so I crept back to “Mother Church.”
I have regretted that move many times, particularly as I have gotten older and less willing to overlook what I consider to be blatant hypocrisy, clericalism and male-centered authoritarianism.
But I love my parish and, equally importantly, my parish loves me. So, as I have said before, I am very happy to nourish myself at the cafeteria. To do so I can no longer consider myself Roman Catholic or American Catholic. I am a Most Holy Redeemer Catholic and that is worthwhile in and of itself.
All church is local. All the rest can be too much of an impediment to be taken seriously in my latter years.
David Nickol —
Yes, the Orthodox have the Eucharist, but that screen between the priests and the people in Orthodox churches prevents the fullest participation of the people, I think. To me it symbolizes a tradition that is lacking some essential truth about the people of God as a whole. See also the too close alliances of its parts with ethnic entities. With all its faults, the RCC is somehow an international Church which reaches out to all peoples.
I’m not sure all the Anglicans have the Eucharist, but I suspect some do. Some think like Protestants about it, some like Catholics, so I don’t think the Anglicans/Episcopalian “Communion” has the unity Jesus intended. I think that Rowan Williams sees that clearly, God bless him. I suspect that there will eventually be a split. Maybe that’s the fundamentall difference between Catholics and Protestants — Protestants with their over-emphasis on individual faith, or should I say their insufficient appreciation of communal belief, has a sort of inherent centrifugal force pushing Protestants apart. I read recently that there are now 14,000 Protestant sects.
That might seem unecumenical of me, but I think we don’t help matters when we deny differences.
Thereis much in Jimmy Mac’s comment!
The beat goes on today:
-adter the appointment of the Bishop of San Antonio to be coadjutor in Los Angeles, a suit was filed today namimg him as a defendant in the lack of managing an abuser there who abused a teenage boy (at gunpoint at one point) in2008.
Today’s Los Angeles Times has a piece on how Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about delaying and giving pastoral care to one Fr. Kiesling a convicted san Francisco abuser.
The vatican has already responded that it’s just one piece of paper.
The scandal will continue and the PR and the defense of hierachy/clergy/clericalism and the beat will go on.
But the notion of how we unite in the Eucharist and live as a community trying to scratch out our salvation is the real stay answer.
Unfortunately, the disconnect now between us and those who want to rell us how to do that but seem so embedded in their own world heightens the problem faced here.
-
“Another reason to not give up on the Catholic Church: the hats. Face it, we got the best hats going. Gotta love it.”
Face it, Jeanne, you’re saying it’s the Mardi Gras instinct that does it for you :-) Could it be that the RCC is more tolerant of fun than the other churches? And how important it that?
Then there is this:
“Archbishop Vlazny decried a March 31 editorial in the (Portland Oregonian) newspaper, a piece by syndicated Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and a cartoon by The Oregonian’s Jack Ohman depicting Pope Benedict XVI responding, “say what?” to demands that he “do something about pedophile priests.”
“The editors arrogantly scolded the church for its past failures in handling this matter of child abuse and, in an insulting and unfair attack, chose this most holy time of the year — during our church’s ‘Year of the Priest’ — to connect the practice of celibacy among our clergy with the problem of sexual abuse, when everyone knows that most abusers by far are married persons!” wrote Archbishop Vlazny in a message e-mailed to diocesan priests.“
(http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=8eff2517-94f6-43b2-ba27-8cb791ae1f33)
Ah, yes, the Year of the Priest. I will take His Lordship’s rant to heart when this church stops dedicating years to the clergy and spends more time concerning itself to the vanishing breed known as the faithful laity.
Bob –
That is really scary about the new LA bishop. Also, I read that he’s a member of Opus Dei.
Yes, Opus Dei. I must read John Allen on how self-flagellation is just akin to a workout at the gym. I have to leave room for a little humor, and of course there are many good people in OD.
The Irish poet Seamus Heaney (who sometimes identifies himself as a Jungian in religion) on Catholicism — “Like many Catholics, lapsed or not, I am of the Stephen Dedalus frame of mind: if you desert this system, you’re deserting the best there is, and there is no point in exchanging one great coherence for some other ad hoc arrangement.”
from Stepping Stones
Ha, you’re right, Ann, I do love the Mardi Gras instinct; there’s an appreciation for the glory of the created world in the Catholic tradition that you just can’t beat.
On that I think you are correct Ann – Catholics are more tolerant of fun and art and flair.
Just look at the historical differences in clothing style, song and culture between the Mediterranean states versus the colder and more serious and reserved Northern states.
Indeed most Catholics I know tend to have more fun than our more grim Protestants brothers.
For example I imagine people in Italy and Greece have more fun and more laughs than those in Scotland or Lativia.
:-)
Not sure if this is the place for it, but the Associated Press has a story titled Future pope stalled pedophile case which has documents with then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s signature showing he took actions in other cases not all that dissimilar to what happened in the Murphy case.
I had come to the conclusion that the CDF had done nothing unjustified in that case (whether or not Ratzinger himself was involved), but the “allegations” were so furiously denounced by many of Ratzinger’s defenders as anti-Catholic slanders that now that it can be clearly demonstrated that he did similar things in other cases, it really does make him look bad.
Yes, David. The AP story confirms a pattern and puts the lie to the standard defense we have heard repeated by the chorus of cardinals and bishops, who bought the talking point that Ratzinger did not have jurisdiction over these cases until 2001. As i pointed out in a post on another thread, CDF had jurisdiction in certain cases like the Tetta case in Arizona and this one, and Ratzinger let the cases languish. This latest revelation is even more damning to the extent that Ratzinger argued that the priest should not be laicized because that may cause scandal among the faithful, due to his young age (38). Where does that logic come from? Certainly not for concern for children and for doing what is right. I suspect there are other similar letters and it is only a matter of time before they come to light.
And finally, the NYT runs a follow-up on Brundage’s admission that the Murphy trial was stopped by Vatican action:
“The Rev. Thomas T. Brundage, a Roman Catholic priest and an ecclesiastical judge who presided over the church trial in Milwaukee in the 1990s of a priest accused of abusing deaf boys, has acknowledged that he was ordered to stop the proceedings in 1998, after a request from the Vatican..”
Weakland had no wiggle room to continue, knowing exactly what Bertone’s message was, as reflected in those May 30 minutes.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/priest-who-oversaw-church-trial-in-wisconsin-abuse-case-admits-error/#preview
Re the Marti Gras instinct: “These people all came from cold climates. I mean, would Kierkegaard have been Kierkegaard if he had been born and lived in Santo Domingo and played a great game of baseball? Did these guys ever truly enjoy a pizza? Can you have faith and love to dance the merengue? What would they have thought of an incarnation if they loved salsa, or swayed to the exquisite melody of the Puerto Rican danza? Thank God for Aquinas, who was Latin and fat.”
- Lorenzo Albacete, God at the Ritz, p. 190
I’m no expert on Orthodox Christianity, but I faithfully read and enjoy Orthodox priest John Garvey’s articles in Commonweal. (His column on the Indian Ocean tsunami and theodicy still resonates with me.) I’ve also had the opportunity to attend a few services in Greek Orthodox churches. Based on the little I know, I don’t think our Orthodox brethren lack in any way the faith, commitment, and fervor that all Christians should have, and I think they have things they can teach us about the clear depth and intensity of their devotion. True we still have theological and institutional differences that separate us, but with the measurable ecumenical progress that has been made in the last few decades (merely minutes in the 1,000-year old schismatic history), there will hopefully come a joyous time when the Roman and Orthodox streams of Christianity will flow as a river again.
Weakland had no wiggle room to continue, knowing exactly what Bertone’s message was, as reflected in those May 30 minutes.
Carolyn Disco,
You have been absolutely right on this from the beginning.
Can I ask the reverse question?
Is there anything that could happen in the Church’s handling of the clergy sex absue issue that would be “a last straw” for you? That would cause you to say, “Enough, I must disassociate myself from this organization.”
I have to say I’m very close to that point right now.
Joe, I can’t imagine what would cause me to say that.
On another note, I have, a few months ago, “diverted my weekly/monthly tithes to worthy causes, Catholic or otherwise, that help people in need” (as J Jaglowitz was advocating today). But I still desire to contribute to a diocesan fund (but not in the diocese where I am currently located). So, I’d like to “adopt-a-diocese” and send contributions there. For practical reasons, it should be in the US.
Can any one recommend a bishop in the US who is particularly active in a good way in dealing with clergy sexual abuse, and who might become my virtual bishop?
Oh David,
I am exhausted making the case everywhere on the internet, and so your words are like balm. Thank you.
And you added greatly to the understanding in your post about Brundage composing the letter to Bertone for Weakland, and the message being: we are reporting back on what you told us to do. Here’s to Camus’ plea for the clear communication of meaning.
The one final interesting twist on this is Bertone’s statement in Chile a few day ago, when asked about halting the trial:
I find Bertone’s comment interesting: “Let’s not talk about this topic now, because otherwise we’ll be here all day verifying precisely the action taken by me and by his eminence.”
So: “action” was in fact “taken” by “his eminence.” But “his eminence” would have to be Ratzinger, right? So while they’ve been telling us, again and again, that Ratzinger was out of the loop, this makes it clear that he was very much in that loop, in it and “taking action.”
Catholic News Service today runs a version of the quote that leaves out the last section about his eminence and just refers to the action “of the congregation in those days.”
I like being Catholic because a Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinz, Oral Roberts etc are not possible in the Catholic church. While I support creativity I do not want silliness. I want the over reverencing of priests and bishops to stop. I want clergy as well as other Catholics to realize that we are more than blood families. That the spiritual family is preferable and that spirit is more important than blood. I want priests to be a living part of the community and not just be a phone number with office hours. I want the church to be a way of life not a doctrinannaire or dogma centered braggadaccio. I am attracted to a Jesus who said mine know me and I know them. I want all that. Which does not take place not because of poor catechesis but for lack of humility. The way and peace is through humility. The reason Rome does not have peace now is the lack of humility. Seeking the last place is the center of the faith and the way to love, peace and life everlasting.
Yes Carolyn, your contributions are so valuable, particularly because you’re always ready to back them up with links to documentation. You’re well-informed, you share your sources, and you are convincing. You have been making a difference to my perception of events.
Point of clarification:
“I was not of the Protestant temperament so I crept back to ‘Mother Church.’ ”
That was then; this is now.
I like Timothy Radcliffe but was not a fan of this particular essay. I am not entirely certain what his point is.
What I do read, is that it seems like he is trying to find a way to work this out within the existing image of Catholic ecclesiology. Afterall, he takes the classic route of identifying Peter with the actual Pope around whom the Church centers. I, disagree, with this concept on many different levels.
Fr. Joe posted an excerpt on Peter from St. Augustine and it need not be read in the classic institutional sense that Peter is the first Pope and everyone other bishop of Rome his successor. Instead, all of us have within us the figure of Peter. Each of us makes the proclamation of faith and then retreats. All of us are called to leadership in some fashion.
Pace Radcliffe and many other Catholic commentators I have read, I think that if he want to make this whole experience about ecclesiology, then I think Berdyaev is the guide for the Church in the postmodern (extending that to mean the post model of classic medieval Catholic ecclesiology):
It is heartening to read comments about what draws us to our church: The Real Presence, God’s unfathomable love for us, the Holy Spirit, the mystery, and a knowing of the heart that here is truth and life.
Time to go pray for the Body of Christ.
I still think of myself as a Catholic though I’ve only been one for a lttle over a decade and I’ve stopped going to church these last few years. I do think other Christian churches have the eucharsit, and speaking for myself I’d rather meet Jesus in prayer than in a wafer. I think I still think of myself as Catholic because it was through a Catholic/Jesuit retreat that I became a Christian, and I still love Catholicism because of that.
Hello Bill (and All),
“I like being Catholic because a Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinz, Oral Roberts etc are not possible in the Catholic church.”
Perhaps you could elaborate on your remark here. Without naming names I can think of a number of Roman Catholics who are public figures and remind me very much of Reverend Falwell, Reverend Robertson and so on.
Hello All,
Sometimes I think certain topics would warrant permanent dedicated threads on this forum. I think answers to the “Why be Catholic?” question are terribly important and potentially helpful to those (like me, I admit) who find sometimes a struggle to remain in the Roman Catholic Church.
Certainly my own answers to the “Why be Catholic?” question have evolved over my life, and that does not seem to be the case for many Roman Catholics I know. When I was very young I believed God wanted me to be Roman Catholic and might not treat me so well in the next life if I did not stay in the Roman Catholic Church. In my teenage years and young adulthood I wanted to stay in because I thought the Roman Catholic Church had the most authentic understanding of the sacraments. I don’t really believe any longer either that God is likely to be nicer to me for my having returned to the Roman Catholic Church. (Just for clarity’s sake I never believed when I was a youngster that God would punish people who were Protestants or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or whatever – only Roman Catholics who left the Roman Catholic Church.) And I don’t believe anymore that this church has a monopoly on the most authentic understanding of the sacraments.
Gradually I’ve come to the view that the only really good reason I should belong to any particular church and/or practice any particular faith tradition is if this church and/or faith tradition helps me to be the most virtuous person I can be. Does my being a practicing Roman Catholic help me to be the most virtuous man I can be? Lately I admit to finding this question hard to answer. I fell away several years ago for what may admittedly be a poor reason: I did not want to remain in a church that I perceived gave all the influence to people like Mother Angelica and George Weigel (who being public figures hopefully won’t mind my snide remark here). And I don’t think I started to become less thoughtful, or lazier, or less devoted to Jesus of Nazareth. I returned to the fold nearly three years ago and to the best of my knowledge am in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church. But I’m simply not sure these days that my practice of the Roman Catholic faith makes be a better human being than I would be otherwise. Indeed, I wonder if I would have turned out better had I not been raised Roman Catholic. My family and my closest friends have had to put up with a lot from me over the years. I wonder if I might have spared them and myself a lot of trouble if I had not tried so hard when I was younger to be what I thought was a good Roman Catholic.
I’d appreciate seeing the views of those here who have views more positive than mine are in this post. (I’ll bet others here would, as well!)
The Radcliffe article? I’ve never read a greater collection of weasel words.
Catholic clergy are no worse than anyone else, perhaps even not as bad. People are making the Church a scapegoat (cf Fr Cantalamessa on anti-semitism). In most cases the bishops didn’t behave irresponsibly. After all, most abuse happened 40 or 50 years ago. You’ve got to remember, times were different. The bishops didn’t realise that the sexual abuse of vulnerable children was really, really serious. They were just trying to help people who were ill. Benedict XVI has always taken a strong line. He’s blameless. He didn’t have enough staff to do more. By the way, I’ve met him. The Vatican has to protect itself. Otherwise bishops and priests might suffer imprisonment and death for their faith. You can’t blame them for being dishonest. In the Resurrection Jesus triumphed over cowardice and lies.
it’s beyond belief. The article displays the disease for which it purports to be the cure.
“In most cases the bishops didn’t behave irresponsibly…The bishops didn’t realise that the sexual abuse of vulnerable children was really, really serious. They were just trying to help people who were ill. Benedict [is] blameless…The Vatican has to protect itself.”
Sarcasm, I hope?
I have to agree with you on that Anonymous. That seems to be the thread that runs through some of this.
Bottom line is that in the absence of the Pope speaking appropriately and simply saying he (they) made a mistake and have learned from it, people are spinning.
I would be surprised if we hear anything meaningful from the Vatican so for me it is a case of no expectations, no disappointments.
But the the issue is so many Catholics are thinking about how to move forward and move on and so it might not be productive to judge too harshly when they seem a bit lost.
I was trying to be moderate and open, but Anonymous’ response to Radcliffe strikes me as absolutely on target. Smooth words but the meta message is certainly clear. The fact that we don’t pick up on it is noteworthy.
Carolyn – agree totally. Like Mr. Gibson, find this excellent priest and leader’s talk to be “FLAT” – little emotion; less passion; no effort to understand the complex situation (some of you have pointed out what appears to be his lack of knowledge around sexual abuse, stats, documented patterns/cases, etc.)
I enjoy reading and studying his presentations – they are usually excellent, make you stop and think; balanced but insightful. This does not meet up to that standard – it appears to even miss what I would call typical human emotional responses to this crisis.
Wonder what is going on?
Carolyn – was hoping that you would weigh in on the “fixer” blog below. Mr. Gallicho is up to his usual defensiveness. Any way you can get Patrick Wall to review and respond. If many of us are going to talk, make comments, etc. about Mr. Wall’s experience, it might be helpful to allow the gentleman to answer these comments, assumptions, and warning judgments himself.
It appears that he is being painted with the same broadbrush that many journalist use – wonder if most folks have ever spent time with him; know him personally; understand his challenges and journey – or, rather, is he just subsumed into that group of legal experts who are seen as attacking the church?
Bill: are you suggesting that this respected scholar, while he was head of the Dominicans from 1992 to 2001, may have also been exposed to the same clergy sexual abuse problems as every other Catholic leader, and reacted similarly to everybody else?
I had not thought about that, but, indeed, as head of the order, how could he not have encountered such situations? Hmmmm…
Radcliffe gave an excellent address at Boston College in 2003 as part of BC’s Church in the 21st Century program. He specifically addressed the scandal and pinned the fault on power over others. This piece in the Tablet seems like a remarkable departure. Is Radcliffe covering for something that happened in the Dominicans? (total conjecture, I admit) Maybe beyond the “we didn’t know sex abuse was bad defense” is the dynamic of brotherhood, such as in police corruption, which causes a member to look out for other members before society at large.
View the 2003 address by Radcliffe, Power and Sex in the Church, here:
http://www.bc.edu/church21/webcast.html (search for ‘Radcliffe’)
requires the dreaded RealPlayer
Wikipedia: “In the year 2000, there were 5,171 Dominican friars in solemn vows, 917 student brothers and 237 novices.”
4 percent of those = 253.
Brian,
I attended that BC presentation and asked a question. You hear his response to my question but not the question itself. I came away very disillusioned with his reply, though otherwise impressed by his observations.
He talked about power as I recall, and I asked him for advice about bishop resignations and accountability, referring to McCormack. His answer in effect was, “have you talked to the bishop?” If someone came to him (Radcliffe) and said, “resign,” he would not be impressed. I need to listen to refresh my memory, but my voice was shaky. I spoke of a prophetic Dominican, Tom Doyle (of course), and he was non-plussed; felt as though he did not want to claim him as a Dominican.
I was flustered enough not to say to him until afterwards, yes, we had met with the bishop, and gotten the usual spin – disproven in spades by government investigations, secret archive releases and depositions. The facts of the bishops’ culpability were not in contention.
Anyway, our exchange was very unsatisfactory, IMO, and I was upset at my own lack of fluency in that high-powered assembly.
As the story continues, I think the leave/stay question – for those for whom it is a real question- has reached the point of not looking to the Varican or the hierarchy for answers.
The new Pew report shows the vastmajority of Ctaholics are dissatisfied by BXVI’s handling of this, but Rome is still very much in a defensive mode which the loyal Biahops are supposed to support.
I think leave/stay now for lots of people depnds on how they see the service, not power and community centered in the Eucharist in their local scene.
It is quite ironic for the misuse of power is the dynamic that continues to fuel all this and the desire to retain power that undermines the credibility of those who held, or thought they held, it.
A small note: I continue to be unimpressed by the discussion clergy seem to be bringing to the table on this.
Msgr. Byrne had a brief thread piece a short time ago from his experiences about the mishandlanding of sex abuse once known.
His column, I thought, brought out a sense of outrage about what has transpired.
Like the Radcliffe piece, as noted here, I think there’s far too flat affect about a deply injurious criminal matter.
Carolyn:
You are fluent – that is not the issue. They do not understand your language – that is the issue. It is they who need to get greater fluency.
Peter –
In response to your question, “Why stay Catholic?” let me ask several more which might help clarify yours.
1. What am I for? (This is often even harder to answer.)
2. What is the Church for?
1. I’ll assume that you haven’t abandoned the old children’s Catechism answer to “Why did God make you?”. The Catechism answers, “To know Him, to love Him, to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with him forever in Heaven”.
2. It’s fair to say that the Church is for helping us do those things, and its help takes many forms. It proclaims the Gospel, and the OT besides, and these help us to know God. To help us love Him it provides those fonts of grace and fellowship, the sacraments. To help us love others it provides structures through which we can help our neighbors. Concerning this first question, I’m with Seamus Heanney: the RCC is far from perfect, but taken a whole the best we’ve got .
It would be helpful, of course, if the Church had promised us good example in its clergymen, but the Church knew better than to promise that. Christ and His saints are our exemplars, and the Church has legions of them. Unfortunately, some RC clergy pretend to be exemplars by reason of their office, but with the scandal we have learned what devastation that sort of semi-idolatry can lead to. Sooner or later Rome will understand that too.
I find it a big problem for many people, probably including you, that the Church doesn’t provide the *specific* help that we as individuals need. Part of that problem is, I think, that the world is just too complex now for a simple parish priest to provide all the help his flock needs. It is next to impossible to find parishes with enough priests to offer the comfort and individual spiritual counselling which the priests used to have time for. Further, many priests are not well enough educated to deal with some of the contemporary theological and philosophical issues that bother many educated people.,
So, we — you — are pretty much on our own discerning what we need *and* what God wants from us as individuals. But God knows this, and with His grace you will begin to find answers. Unfortunately, given changing contexts, He sometimes changes what He wants for us and what He wants from us, and that’s very disconcerting. But that’s really nothing new, and I’m sure many bishops are also finding that out now. He never did promise to provide us with quick, simple, and permanent answers to “What do I need?” and “What does God want from me?”. Knowing you to be a complex person, I doubt you’re going to find any such answers anywhere. Sigh.
Another basic problem is that it;s hard to say right now just what the Church itself is, given the body blow of the sex scandal, We, all of us, conservative, liberal, eclectic, whatever, know that something in the Church has begun to change at least in a major way, if not radically. This is particularly hard on those who hate change or who fear it. So far we mostly seem to agree that what must change in some way is the hierarchy. But what about the rest of us? That too will take discernment. The Church has *not* changed its fundamental mission and teachings. But what about the rest of it?
So what to do? I could say look into the richness of the RCC heritage for spiritual guidance, but that’s like saying check out the Harvard library. I am sure of one thing: in these awful times, we must begin with prayer, very, very serious and continuting prayer. I particularly recommend (again!) the wordless, imageless, judgement-less. even question=less kind called Cemtering Prayer, the utterly simply kind which is an acceptance the presence and action of God within us. Check out ‘Contemplative Outreach” on the net, or get Fr. Keating’s “Open Mind, Open Heart”. It’s made to order for people who feel lost in the dark woods and are having trouble finding out where and how to pick up their old spiritual trail again.
Sorry to go on at such lengths, but the questions are not simple, nor are the answers easily found. Nevertheless, Deus providebit, old chum, Deus providebit.
Re: Contemplative Outreach, Ann, we have started an online group that has members from Argentina and throughout the US. It is in the starting stages, getting tech problems sorted out, but after prayer, we converse, watch a Keating video, etc. Some have cameras, I am working on getting one, and most have mikes, otherwise “type it in.”
This is experimental but very meaningful even at this early stage. The wonders of computers; online prayer and fellowship, like videoconferencing.
So Ann, your program matches Pope Benedict’s concrete initiative for the Irish — with “Eucharistic Adoration” substituted in for “Centering Prayer”, but both are very, very serious and continuing prayer, wordless, imageless, judgement-less. even question-less, utterly simply, an acceptance of the presence and action of God…
Particular attention should [...] be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.
I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free
This has been a positive and nice discussion, so let me not sully by dragging my black dog of contentions with the Church in here.
But I must respond to this: “I imagine people in Italy and Greece have more fun and more laughs than those in Scotland or Lativia [sic].”
The Scots have an unwarranted reputation for dourness. Their humor is deadpan (like that of the Welsh), and I never had a better time in my life than in Edinburgh and Inverness and points in between.
The Scots I met were utterly lovely people, outgoing and friendly. I remember the landlord of a B&B in Inverness whose doggie sat with me at breakfast every morning because I fed him bacon. And a dear old man named Maurice I met in a park feeding squirrels, who was fascinated to learn that we had them in America and wanted to know if I’d been to Dallas (because he watched the TV show). And so many handsome men with beautiful thick beards willing to chat up a slightly disoriented and homesick American girl over lager.
Yes, Jean, I too felt that comment was a put-down and undeserved. Besides, I don’t think that being Catholic means one has no positive appreciation for Calvinists or Lutherans, or the cultures that have been influenced by them. It would be sad indeed if we were prevented from seeing the goodness in others by a chauvinistic sense of the virtues of our own tradition.
It’s interesting that Benedict expects eucharistic adoration to solve all our spiritual problems. I’m not so sanguine about that, myself.
Hello Rita (and All),
I think my initial reaction to the Holy Father’s statement was similar to yours. At first I thought it was silly to tell people that Eucharistic adoration will solve all the problems we face. But on closer reading the Holy Father does not say this. Upon reflection I read the Holy Father as saying that Eucharistic adoration is one way we all can participate in healing and renewal of the church (which I read as “the people of God”). (Admittedly the last sentence in the quotation Claire posted for us suggests that Eucharistic adoration alone will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland, but I rather doubt that the Pope meant this exactly.)
I think that maybe the Pope meant that if everyone did Eucharistic Adoration the Church would change. No doubt that’s right, but most people have had no instruction in contemplative prayer of any sort, so it’s not going to happen. I just know from my own experience that Centering Prayer has taken me through some very rough spots, and I recommend it highly.
Carolyn — your experiment sounds like a fine idea :-)
Rita and Jean –
I don’t think the English and Scots are humorless, they’re just reserved. I love English humor the most. It comes at you from an angle. John Cleese dead-panning it through the Ministry of Funny Walks is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen :-)
Apropos Eucharistic adoration: I have experienced its immense gift for young people here at Boston College, both in introducing them to a more contemplative prayer and to a greater realization of the heights and depths of the mystery of the Eucharist.
I believe that today the only true renewal of the Church will take place in the school of the Eucharist, beginning with bishops and priests and embracing the entire people of God. Understanding the Eucharist in its full Catholic sense of the corpus Christi mysticum and the corpus Christi verum: the eucharistic body of the Lord nourishing his eucharistic people, the Church.
My post was entitled: “Whither?”
Here is Gerard Manley Hopkins’ response:
“The frown of his face//Before me, the hurtle of hell//Behind, where, where was a, where was a place?//
I whirled out wings that spell//And fled with a fling of the heart to the heart of the Host.”
It was also his response to “Why?”
The Times Are Nightfall
The times are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
Gerard Manley Hopkins
It seems to me that for many reasons it is essential that the Church make a great effort to teach contemplative prayer to the laity. There are several forms that have caught on with many lay people, for instance, Centering Prayer, Fr; John Main’s mantra form, and the Jesus Prayer.
Yes, Eucharistic Adoration was popular when I was a child, but it was thrown out as medieval after Vat 2. Yes, conservatives, I agree that there were some unfortunate consequences of VII because many liberals didn’t appreciate such things. I suspect other reasons it was dropped were, first, it wasn’t “practical” == it didn’t involve going out and helping the poor (see how much they misunderstood it?), and, second, it couldn’t be described in material terms well enough for the boomer hedonists to begin to understand.
Today, I think, the yearning for transcendence has taken root in the popular culture only in science fiction stories about other places “far out there and above us”, as in the enormously popular Star Wars and Avatar. Yes, they are about good , and Avatar is about beauty. But they are still anchored to this world. At least some of them present some idea of alternative universes, but they’re still thoroughly physical ones. (Or are there some science fiction writers who touch on the purely spiritual?)
I fear Benedict is right about this: the consciousness of the secular world does not extend any farther than the physical, and it is a terrible historical development. Parents work hard so that their children can have “everything” but they are limited to lovely physical stuff. Only in generous actions that can be seen do they even approach the values of the spiritual dimension.
It is widely recognized that Buddhism does seek — and finds — a somewhat different realm, and this, obviously, is its appeal to the seculars who pursue it. But there are levels of spirit and some of the beginning practices of the Buddhists do take us somewhat deeper into our own meager spirits, but the adept Buddhist practitioners tell us that when we travel to the bottom of our selves there are no selves there and no God either, not a personal one, anyway. But at least some of their beginning practices introduce people to the reality of something other than what can be measured, seen, heard, tasted and touched or felt in any way — they let us be aware of our own consciousness in action in a way it is not aware of itself when it is directed outwards towards matter, and in those simple experiences we can find a level of consciousness that is spirit. And we discover that it is just as palpably real as a patch of green or a bit of sweetness or a blast of heat. This, of course, is something the narrow-minded scientists turn away as even being possible, and then they go on to make exaggerated claims about the nature of “the world”. (Carl Sagan said, “The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be”. Sheesh.)
It was Greek and medieval philosophy — pure reason — that introduced me to the reality of the spiritual level, and most people consider such pursuits to be poison :-) But it seems to me that some of the low-level Asian contemplative practices and the Western religious ones *are* for everyone — including Protestants who heretofore have, they thought, shunned such practices. But Fr. Keating says that their Bible reading is for many a form of lectio divina, a practice that end in a state of contemplative prayer. Plus, he says, the Rosary also can end up in the contemplative state, and this is one reason it has been so popular.
So I think Benedict is right to push the Eucharistic Adoration. What better practice could there be for us ordinary folk? I can’t imagine a better practice for these times, except that it isn’t safe to walk to church in the middle of the night for perpetual adoration. People used to do that in the olden days when it was sometimes available in the parishes. These days we can’t even keep the church doors unlocked for “visits to the Blessed Sacrament”, so I would push the other practices as well.
At any rate, a Church without contemplative prayer is like a person without a soul. We lay people — the Church — need it badly whether we know it or not, especially considering that we live in such a frenetic and dangerous, stress-laden world. Making snide remarks about the Pope’s recommendation just ignorance of what he’s talking about. We’re *not* talking about self-flaggelation or cilices or hours kneeling on a bare floor (you sit) or extraordinary raptues (though some few are blessed with those). We’re talking a simple prayer that can change your life very much for the better. And it’s free, guys. So there.
“I imagine people in Italy and Greece have more fun and more laughs than those in Scotland or Lativia [sic].””
This is what comes of reading ChesterBellloc, I suspect,
Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!
== Hilaire Belloc
Ann,
I’ve often sung a hearty “Amen” to the Belloc verse, and I still find a fine red wine to be unique. However, I confess to having, over the past years (since turning fifty!), acquired something of a taste for single-malts from the land of mist and peat. Hopefully, it is not incompatible with contemplation.
Fr. Imbelli –
In my old age I find good German ale particularly satisfying. There goes the Southern/Northern dichotomy :-)
To expand on Peter’s response to: “I like being Catholic because a Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinz, Oral Roberts etc are not possible in the Catholic church.”
Jerry Falwell, meet Leonard Feeney.
Pat Robertson, meet Charles Coughlin.
Benny Hinz, meet Mother Angelica.
Yesm but Feeney was at least checked by the Church. Cushing excommunicated him. Although Feeney excommunicated Cushing also. In one of the classic lines Cushing said: “He beat me to the punch.”
Coughlin was discredited Angelica still has to play by some rules. No question we have our extremities but no one is allowed to get overtly rich on people. It has to be disguised like John Courntey Murray driving the Rolls Royce of donors and Cardinals and bishops having exclusive rights of executive jets. We do have our excesses but we recognize them as such whereas Robertson and the rest have the money in their names. Even Spellman, the most powerful bishop in American histroy left no estate.
Hello Bill (and All),
Thanks for your response to my and Jimmy’s earlier posts. And I must admit that the people Jimmy named were some of the people I had in mind.
It’s Benny HINN, not Hinz.