Pope Benedict speaks.
April 15, 2010, 11:31 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Rachel Donadio reports on the pope’s spontaneous remarks during his homily today:
“I have to say that we Christians, even in recent times, have often avoided the word ‘penance,’ which seems too harsh,” Benedict said at a Mass on Thursday morning, Vatican Radio reported.
“Now under the attacks of the world that talks to us of our sins, we see that the ability to perform penance is a grace and we see how it is necessary to perform penance, that is, to recognize what is wrong in our life,” he added.
It’s a start.
Here’s the Vatican Radio report (and partial transcript), for you Italian scholars. The relevant bit:
JAK: Here’s a translation: “I must say that we Christians, even in recent times, have often avoided the word ‘repentance,” which seemed too hard to us. Now, under the attacks of the world that are talking to us about our sins, we see that to be able to do penance is a grace and we see how necessary it is to do penance, that is, to acknowledge what is worng in our lives. To open oneself to pardon, to prepare oneself for pardon, to allow oneself to be transformed. The pain of repentance, that is, of purification and transformation, this pain is grace, because it is renewal, because it is the work of divine mercy.”
Yes!!
This matches his letter to the bishops of Ireland: “Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal. ”
Now, let him lead by example. How wonderful it would be!
“As he often had in the past, Benedict denounced dictatorships like those of the Nazis and Communists, adding that today, there exist “subtle forms of dictatorship” such as “conformism.””
A Pope criticizing conformity? What splendid news for the theologians! Hmm. Wonder wassup.
Also possibly useful for contextualizing — since this was a homily: the readings for today’s Mass. They help explain how both penitence and obedience to God came up.
Question is what does his penance mean and how is it interpreted in Rome and down the line?
In our beloved country, there are major efforts against SOL legislation in Connecticut and Wisconsin by the hierarchy.
The Bishop of Cincinnati spent a few shekels sending out a letter to every registered catholic defending he Pope.
In the meantime, I see the Bertone remark had to be reinterpreted just like the comparison to the holocaust by the Poe’s preacher.
For me, some fundamental change in the governance structure and an honest effort to help all victims, not just tamp down expenses because “the good of the Church is more important” needs to happen.
Hopefully this will focus energy on rebuilding the church rather than endless explanations for culpable behavior which Benedict is now wisely acknowledging.
“Now under the attacks of the world . . . . .”
Both Bob and Bill hit the nail on the head. Forgiveness without penance is meaningless. All of us in the sacrament understand that Christ’s grace is not “cheap grace” – we must do restitution and show penance and a firm purpose at conversion.
Rome needs to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. Some practical suggestions:
a) universal sex abuse policy backed up by canon law;
b) make every conference of bishops accountable and responsible to implement and track/report;
c) post all abuse historical records on line;
d) take a worldwide stand against sexual slavery; buying and selling of young brides; trafficking in sex slaves, etc. – meet the UN Declaration on Human Rights;
e) stop all active fighting of SOLs – or at least stop wasting money on fighting legal/political challenges;
f) establish a Truth & Reconciliation Board
g) make sure that any go forward policy clearly outlines the accountabilities and responsiblities of bishops and have an outside, independent board track this – failure results in suspension; then, retirement.
Sounds as if Benedict still can’t choke out the words : “I and the Curia and my Bishops need to repent.” Instead it’s the rest of us Christians who have to do penance, just as it was the faithful of Ireland he invited to do penance.
It is interesting to see him zeroing in now on “conformism” as a motive for criticism of the church. Does he think people are criticizing the church because that’s the “in” thing to do? Does this mean we have gotten over our troubling relativism?
How very optimistic everyone is! This seems awfully oblique to me.
Now, under the attacks of the world that are talking to us about our sins, we see that to be able to do penance is a grace and we see how necessary it is to do penance, that is, to acknowledge what is worng in our lives.
The attacks of the world? We Christians … Our sins?
Will the hierarchu ever take responsibility for the badness, will theyy make actual changes that show true repentance?
Rita
Your post made me think, Aha! “the mystery of obliquity”. (cf. 2 Thess 2:7 Douai Version)
Sounds as if Benedict still can’t choke out the words : “I and the Curia and my Bishops need to repent.”
How about a little encouragement? Instead of shooting down the first possible stirring of a change, we could cheer him on: yes, he can do it! Just a little more effort and he’ll choke out those words!
I agree with Benedict. Next year should be proclaimed the year of penance. As in Ninaveh, the pope and all the bishops should lead the way. The mass and all liturgical ceremonies should be done in sack cloth and ashes, rather than ostentatious vestiments.
Ironically, when I was young, Roman Catholic gay men went into seminary more commonly that straight boys in the belief–the most powerful force in families from which priests come–that thereby they would not be damned, could avoid marriage, and were doing what everybody else in their family and their church wanted (if they were unsure of this, they had only to ask). As for the role of celibacy, we have not heard of similar problems in Catholic churches where clergy do marry, in the eastern-rite latin churches and orthodox denominations. Roman priests apparently find that two categories of parishioner come readily to hand: adult women and altar boys. The latter may appeal because they bear some of the characteristics of the former, not overly masculine, compliant, unlikely to complain, easy to threaten.
In any case, the Roman church has lately taken extraordinary measures to keep homosexuals out, which may explain why they now have such a desperate shortage of priests, and have to import most of them from overseas.
The things Benedict says are good but saying and doing are two different things. He’s spent his career drawing power (and consequently initiative) from the bishops and the faithful into the papacy. He rules as absolute monarch, the capstone of the organizational disfunction and clericalism in the Church. We cannot look to Benedict or most the bishops for the reform of the system of governance; they’re too much in it. Reform must come from below, one way or the other.
Talk is cheap.
Chris says, “In any case, the Roman church has lately taken extraordinary measures to keep homosexuals out, which may explain why they now have such a desperate shortage of priests, and have to import most of them from overseas.”
Does anyone think that homosexuals are now kept out?? That seems awfully naive.
Fr. Anthony, OSB
Here is a piece from a French psychoanalyst — http://www.la-croix.com/Jacques-Arenes-La-pedophilie-n-est-pas-d-abord-une-question-/article/2422168/4078
The psychoanalyst thinks society is too lax about adult-adolescent relationships (which he sees as psychologically pretty normal expressions of gay or straight sexuality, but as morally highly questionable).
L’opinion semble hésiter à condamner les relations entre adultes et adolescents, de 13 à 17 ans. On ne peut que constater la permissivité qui existe en la matière, non sans déni. Cette hésitation se traduit même au niveau légal : l’âge de la majorité sexuelle est théoriquement fixé à 15 ans, mais l’adulte qui use de son autorité pour séduire un ado peut être assigné devant un tribunal.
Cela révèle une ambivalence du monde adulte sur le sujet : on tolère dans certains cas, tout en fermant les yeux dans bien d’autres. Et cette ambivalence concerne aussi bien les milieux homosexuels qu’héterosexuels.
Mark Shea has a burst of eloquence today, which as I see it is further proof that Benedict has weathered the media storm: http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/04/responsible-journalism.html
Not to say, of course, that ongoing painful reflection is not continuing in Vatican circles, with a hope that there will be some real institutional change.
But let’s remember that Benedict is 83, and wish him a happy birthday.
If we want reform, not revolution, we have to work together with our bishops and our pope. For example, instead of “just withdrawing $$$ from the church”, we can target our donations to places, organizations, and people within the church whom we want to encourage. I appreciate that the website bishopaccountability.org keeps track of problems. For a constructive approach, I would like to also see, in addition, a website that keeps track of forward-looking initiatives and people.
As to Pope Benedict, I want to believe that he is reflecting on the structure of evil within the church and on how it created a context within which well-meaning people indirectly caused sexual abuse. I have not given up – I am waiting to hear more from him.
On the other hand, after reading quotes of an interview of Cardinal Castrillón-Hoyos on http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2764
I have to say that optimism about Rome seems more like self-indulgent fantasy than cold realism. But what else is there to do? “To whom shall we go?” This is our church even if the task if rebuilding it looks overwhelming.
I had filed a piece on the pope’s “penance” homily yesterday, went for dinner and got back at 11pm to find out about the Vatican statement on the 2001 Castrillon Hoyos letter. Which made for a later night than expected:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/15/top-vatican-official-praised-bishop-who-covered-for-child-molest/
The Vatican is an odd place, and nevermoreso than these troubled days. Lots of BigWigs making silly proclamations, pope largely silent, media and Vatican both feeling under attack — by each other — and lower level curialists scratching their heads in wonderment.
And the pope, routinely described as the smartest man in the Vatican, gives this constructive homily yesterday but it is only found on a feed at Vatican Radio’s site, and the transcript is still (as I write) up at the Secretary of State being “vetted” before “official” release. Oy vey.
Oh, and it’s the pope’s 83rd birthday today — and they still can’t tell us what kind of cake the American hierarchs on the Papal Foundation gave him! That, of course, is what inquiring minds want to know about…
Claire, that Castrillon CNN interview is amazing — and not surprising. Castrillon was widely seen a a “loser” coming out of the conclave, and he retired from the Clergy Congregation in 2006. But his promotion of the Old Rite at Ecclesia Dei kept him in the loop with B16 until last year.
Here’s the heart of it. Peggy Noonan.
“In a way, the Vatican lives outside time and space. The verities it speaks of and stands for are timeless and transcendent. For those who work there, bishops and cardinals, it can become its own reality. And when those inside fight for what they think is the life of the institution, they feel fully justified in fighting any way they please. They can do this because, as they rationalize it, they are not fighting only for themselves—it’s not selfish, their fight—but to protect the greatest institution in the history of the world.
“But in the past few decades, they not only fought persons—”If you were loyal you’d be silent”—they fought information.
“What they don’t fully understand right now—what they can’t fully wrap their heads around—is that the information won.
“The information came in through the cracks, it came in waves, in newspaper front pages, in books, in news beamed to every satellite dish in Europe and America. The information could not be controlled or stopped. The information was that something very sick was going on in the heart of the church.
“Once, leaders of the Vatican felt that silence would protect the church. But now anyone who cares about it must come to understand that only speaking, revealing, admitting and changing will save the church.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186451300061536.html
Poor Castrillon, jettisoned from the barque.
The man entrusted with returning the SPPX back to the fold.
“He was a fierce opponent of liberation theology, an effort among progressive Latin American Catholics to place the church on the side of progressive social movements. Castrillón has been elegized by one of the 20th century’s foremost novelists, Colombian Gabriel García Márquez, who described him as ‘this rustic man with the profile of an eagle.’ Castrillón alienated some Americans during the sexual abuse crisis of 2002. It fell to him to present the pope’s first public statement on the crisis during a March news conference, and he came off as defensive and combative, broadly hinting that the situation was an ‘American problem.’”
–John Allen in NCR, 2005
I haven’t seen anyone quote the paragraph in Castrillon-Hoyas’ letter in which the justification is given why a bishop does not have to denounce one of his priests. I give it here, in translation, for informational purposes only:
“In fact, the relationship between priests and their bishop is not a professional one; it is a sacramental relationship that creates very special bonds of spiritual fatherhood. This idea has been amply taken up by the last Council, by the 1971 Synod of Bishops, and by the 1991 Synod. A bishop has other means for acting, as the Conference of Bishops in France has recently recalled; but one cannot require a bishop himself to make the denunciation. In all civilized juridical systems, the possibility is recognized that a close relative not testify against another.”
In the US legal system, it used to be the case that one spouse could not be forced to testify against the other. Is this still true? Are there any other examples of such exemptions? What of parent-child relationships? I doubt that there are very many legal systems that would accept the comparison the Cardinal makes. It sure is a different approach from the notorious one employed by a few U.S. bishops that a bishop cannot be held responsible for the crimes of his priests because they are “independent contractors”". I can’t tell you how this infuriated priests!
Add that priests are brothers — who have shared the same general experience — and who cannot demonize and cut off the sex offenders as belonging to a different species (as most commentators seem able to do).
A saintly Irish sister, since deceased, used to say: Jesus stands with the pedophiles.
JAK: I’m glad you called attention to that passage. It is interesting, as it raises an important sacramental point about the priest-bishop relationship, but one that can be used (stretched or ignored) in many ways.
Or simply invoked as one likes. Castrillon seems to have been most eager to avoid scandal for the church (or hierarchy). Yet in the US, priests were (and largely remain) the target of all policies and norms and one-strike penalties.
That said, I don’t think the sacramental paternity should interfere with reporting an abuser, unless he confesses in a scaramental situation. If your son had killed or abused or was threatening to do harm to another child of yours, you’d do something. That a child commits a crime and goes to jail does not change the relationship.
If you have a small business – say, a private school – and your son is an employee – say, a teacher -, and you see him stealing or committing some crime – say, raping one of the students-, then, since you are both his employer and his parent, what are you supposed to do?
The paragraph that Fr. Komonchak cites all too clearly points up the depths of clericalism. As Raymond Brown, among others, has put it (Brown, “The churches the Apostles Left Behind), the fundamental link between Jesus and us is established by baptism. Whatever distinctions there are among us, e.g., bishops, priests, lay people, are distinctions that presuppose this fundamental sameness. The paragraph cited, by what it fails to acknowledge, is tantamount to “practical heresy.” If priests are sons of their bishop, what are the laymen? Something less that sons and daughters? If so, please explain the sacramental basis for such a claim.
Furthermore, are the bishop’s sons (and daughters) perpetual minors?
Listen to the latest rants by Archbishop Burke and Bishops Brandt and Tobin. How dare “mere” nuns (or laypeople) disagree with these “successors of the Apostles.”
I grant that bishops are successors of the Apostles. I surely do not have to grant that they are all worthy successors.
This familial metaphor of bishop as Father, priests as favored sons has come to serve as the justification for largely ignoring our common baptismal character that makes all of us disciples, all sinful disciples always in need of conversion and mutual “fraternal” instruction and correction.
The sex abuse scandal glaringly exposes the “practical heresy” operative in the family metaphor being hawked by people like Burke, Brandt and Tobin.
Bernard – I think the idea of the father-son relationship between bishop and priest is that it “replaces” the family relationships that most of us experience. The priest, in a sense, leaves that way of life behind – it’s part and parcel of his calling.
I don’t think it implies that the priest is always a minor. I’m blessed that my father still lives, and I have an adult father-son relationship with him. In some families and cultures, a man of my father’s age might be the patriarch of an extended family. Dispensing wisdom, occasionaly cajoling, making important family decisions, maybe lending money once in a while. He might own the family business that employs a ot of his descendents. I think that’s analogous to the sort of thing a bishop would be.
Bernard – good thoughts; well-written. Folks like Jim can pick it apart but you get to the heart of the attitude and explain the foundational and sacramental core extremely well. As usual with the church, the best approach is “both-and” rather than “either-or” – you underline those who skew to the “either-or” approach too much….yes, it has led to a crisis with sexual abuse.
““In fact, the relationship between priests and their bishop is not a professional one; it is a sacramental relationship that creates very special bonds of spiritual fatherhood. ”
JAK –
Is there are there any ancient traditions or scriptural justifications for this view? When did this metaphor emerge? It looks like another one of those metaphors which the bishops interpret more literally than is justified, and to their own advantage. (The older I get the more dangerous I think metaphors are.)
Also, in Louisiana a parent can testify against a child. I know a family in which this happened. The man was an embezzler and pleaded insanity. His mother testiified against him. People said he was “crazy like a fox”.
Ann: I can’t at the moment think of any NT justification of the view that a bishop is a father to his priests, except perhaps that the author of the Pastoral Epistles refers to Timothy as “his beloved son in faith” (1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2; 2:1; Tit 1:4), but whether this relationship was in virtue of their faith or because of their ordination is not clear. References to “co-workers” are far more common.
The problem, of course, is not with metaphors, but with their use. We can hardly do without them, and they can communicate things that are hard to communicate without them.
Thank you, Bernard! Outstanding analysis. That goes into a file on my hard drive.
My favorite bishop (all together now – “McCormack”), though he is emblematic of the mindset of many, told me and others if a father makes a mistake, you don’t throw him out of the family. Meaning he made mistakes but we should not ask for his resignation.
Then I heard a reply elsewhere: Oh yes you do remove a father from the home who failed to protect his children. I believe someone who posts here spoke of reporting his son to the police, and the difficult choices parents make.
One hopes that concern for others’ welfare extends more widely than just immediate family. I welcome Bill DeHaas’ observation about both-and.
One comment sticks in my mind from a deacon who was a bulwark of support in my former parish: “I am sick and tired of dealing with priests who consider the bishop their daddy.”
Another thought regarding Benedict’s homily: he never mentioned the sexual abuse crisis in his remarks. People were warned by Lombardi earlier this week (think that’s who) not to insinuate the scandal into every papal statement. Then comes this indirect Vatican speak that maybe means something relevant to the scandal, maybe not. Take your pick. We are scolded for projecting, and then perhaps they hope we do just that, to ease the pressure on them.
What I find troubling in the excerpted text I’ve seen is that Benedict speaks about forgiveness without indicating what sins he acknowledges. The ownership of culpability for enabling a nightmare of molestation is somewhere in those ethers apparently. It’s all too removed from the reality.
Still, with Claire, I want to say to Benedict, “You can do it, just fire a decent number of complicit bishops; please, go for that powerful action. Then, dig into Bill DeHaas’ proposals – any two will be fine for a start. Happy Birthday! and, imagine by this time next year, all the items can be initiated. You seem/are the best of the lot over there for the task.”
“Rome needs to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. Some practical suggestions:
a) universal sex abuse policy backed up by canon law;
b) make every conference of bishops accountable and responsible to implement and track/report;
c) post all abuse historical records on line;
d) take a worldwide stand against sexual slavery; buying and selling of young brides; trafficking in sex slaves, etc. – meet the UN Declaration on Human Rights;
e) stop all active fighting of SOLs – or at least stop wasting money on fighting legal/political challenges;
f) establish a Truth & Reconciliation Board
g) make sure that any go forward policy clearly outlines the accountabilities and responsibilities of bishops and have an outside, independent board track this – failure results in suspension; then, retirement.”
“c) post all abuse historical records on line;’
I’m with you guys all the way, except I wonder about this c). Do the victims all want this? Maybe they should have the right of redaction?
If I’m not mistaken, the Vatican is already involved in combatting sex slavery world-wide. I think there are some nuns involved. It’s a beginning.
Who should confess and who should absolve? Benedict speaks of “we Christians” and that raises questions of its own.
See a powerful article by the son of a former priest and nun; his mother was abused by a priest and told to go confess her sins.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505072.html
Who really belongs in the confessional?
Yes, Ann, most victims I am aware of want those documents out there, but always, they must be redacted. I’ve pored over my share, alerting identifiers and names for BishopAccountability.org before posting.
Their lifeblood and that of their lawyers has gone into gaining access to the truth the documents contain. When people approach me asking if priest X or Y is really guilty, I just pass on the ba.org links. It settles the matter.
Bishops fight relentlessly to keep the documents sealed because they know without them no one would know a thing. Documents are the lifeline of survivors; then they will be believed and the criminal conduct of bishops and chancery staff exposed. No documents = no scandal.
It used to be said that bishops were married to the community they headed and therefore a bishop who moves to a new community commits spiritual adultery. A pretty thought! But careerism has had its way and no one would think of accusing a bishop of adultery if he stepped up to a larger diocese from a smaller one on the road to who knows what. Or should we say that a bishop who abandons his diocese has the character of a father who abandons his sons for a richer spouse? Metaphors are sometimes just metaphors just as cigars are sometimes just cigars.
Bernard, Vatican II stressed that the episcopacy was the fullness of the priesthood, strengthening the idea that presbyters participated in a priestly charism that bishops had to the full. Irish theologian Seamus Ryan was among those who clarified this notion. The media works with a merely administrative concept of episcopacy.
A bishop could tell his erring “son” — OK, let’s go to the police, and could report the priest’s misdeeds to the family of the victim as well (I heard of a letter from a bishop to Card. Ottaviani reporting just such a situation).
Perhaps a main reason bishops have been slow to report priests to the police is that the public and perhaps also the legal reaction to sex offenses with minors has become so draconian.
Fr. O’Leary, I do not question the distinctive role that the bishop has within the Church. I do however want to emphasize that this is a role WITHIN the Church, within the community constituted by baptism. All the baptized have a common tie to Christ that they ought to respect in one another. First and foremost, at least among adults, that respect calls for not only acknowledging but also appreciating one another’s capabilities and vulnerabilities. Raymond Brown’s reflections on Ch 18 of Matthew’s Gospel in his “The Church the Apostles Left Behind” brilliantly discusses the whole issue of the exercise of authority in the Church. That discussion shows just how far off the mark some of the bishops have been in the way they they have exercised their role.