Women, The Church, and The Scandal
Peggy Noonan has published a rhetorically powerful piece on the scandal in the Wall Street Journal. The end suggests that if there were women involved in the higher levels of the Vatican, the situation wouldn’t be as dire as it has become. Women, she thinks, would have advocated for protecting the victims rather than protecting the institution.
In a recent Newsweek article, Lisa Miller tries to make the same point, although in a more nuanced and qualified manner.
I am leery of this line of argument, because it is a mirror image of the gender essentialism that has often been used to keep women OUT of certain roles in church and society.
I think we need a diversity of voices, a diversity of experiences, the breadth of wisdom in the body of Christ to solve the problem. But tokenism isn’t the answer.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to suggest that all women are going to respond in lockstep on any particular question. The reason it’s not a good idea is that it’s demonstrably false. There are women –e.g., Sr. Sara Butler–who vigorously support the Church’s teaching on the all-male priesthood. She’s now, incidentally, a member of the International Theological Commission. And there are and were women who have the same sense of institutional loyalty as Cardinal Law defends in Noonan’s article. Mary Ann Glendon was a vigorous defender of the Legionaries of Christ’s founder, Maciel, against what turned out to be truthful allegations of abuse.
So, more women should be more involved in deliberative decision-making processes because women have the background, talents, and commitment to contribute–and because it’s arbitrary to exclude them. They are as talented as men. But they (we) also disagree among ourselves as much as men do. And that means that it is always possible for any group of men to find a woman who thinks just like they do.
Yes — and I think it’s only true (or only seems true) that women would have sided with the victims over protecting the institution because women are not represented in the hierarchy. If women had had more power and authority, they’d also have had more incentive to protect themselves just as the men did.
Noonan quoted herself a lot.
one can support the all-Male Priesthood in the role of a Good Father while supporting Woman, in the role of a Good Mother, in the decision making at the higher levels of the Vatican and within The Church, simultaneously.
To engage in a bit of gender essentialism: it seems that women almost never commit sexual abuse of children. Isn’t that fact relevant to this hypothetical about women’s approach to this problem?
“Women, she thinks, would have advocated for protecting the victims rather than protecting the institution.”
By analogy consider the political career of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The difficulty with her construct (as shown by the example of Margaret Thatcher) is that so long as women are chosen by men, they will likely demonstrate the qualities that men (or at least male leaders) value. Probably more to the point, it’s not really a question of whether women are available to whisper in the ear of the Pope, but whether they are distributed throughout the organization, where, if they attained a certain critical mass, they probably would have changed, however subtly, the response to allegations of wrongdoing by men within the organization.
Counterfactuals are highly problematic. A Church that incorporates women into roles of leadership is unlikely to have insisted on unmarried celibate clergy, and, whatever you think about the role of celibacy, it clearly led to shortages that (a) possibly allowed less than suitable candidates to be approved and (b) heightened the anxiety about “losing” priests, even less than good ones. I actually think that without the anxiety over the shortage of priests, the Church’s response to individual cases of abuse would have changed earlier than it did. I think this is more important than the role of women. None of us can prove any of it, however, except by looking at how other denominations behaved.
JC makes an interesting part, although it is very common (from what I have read, and what I have heard anecdotally) for a husband to abuse a daughter or step-daughter and for the mother of the daughter to be in denial.
One of the best reason to give women power in the Church is that when you arbitrarily exclude half the population, you are depriving yourself of half the talent and ability you could draw on.
No doubt, power and the use of authority has the potential to be used for corruption and abuse, but only if one allows corruption and abuse to occur.
Nancy,
No doubt at all.
Cathy, I had the same questions as in your post — in fact, Lucetta Scaraffia, a historian at Rome’s La Sapienza University, wrote a piece in L’Osservatore Romano last month (before things got uncomfortably close to the Vatican) in which she suggested that more women in higher ranks would have averted the scandal. She even used the mafia term “omerta’” to describe the male clerical approach — a reference that in 2002 got former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating canned as the first head of the Lay Review Board:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001020.htm
It’s interesting that such a piecw went in LOR, but it just doesn’t ring true. A diversity of voices and points of view is good for any institution, but if they are have the same CYA attitude, then it doesn’t matter the gender of the leaders. Or race. Or whatever.
I agree with the last partagraph of Cathy’s presentation.
Those of us who havew orked in old boy netwroks and then seen the change by including women in leadership does mean some kind of real change happens.
While it’s true that there will always be tokenism in trying to establish gender equality, the issue of women’s roles in our Church has not been successfully resolved and the all male network at the top promotes the current system that is dysfunctional in dealing with the sex abuse crisis and..
As the Bertone dustiuup reminds us, it makes gays an easy scapegoat, even if closet gays are part of that sytem….
And, more compl;ainst about our health care nuns – Bishop Tobin in Rhode Island – more importantly, the address cited in today’s NCR piece on that, about the address of Abp. Burke at Mundelien seminary criticizing those nuns for their lack of”loyalty and obedience.”
It’s that emphasis on loyalty and obedience within the old boys club that contributes heavily to the current situation – the institution above all.
More chilling, it’s in an address in a major seminary which clearly doesn’t bode well for the future.
Sr. Butler might agree, but the state of her seminary is not very great either.
What’s at stake here is not whether mere inclusion of women would have solved or ameliorated the sex abuse crisis, but the profound governance structure problems in the Church and the correlative problem of women therein (and the further issues of human sexuality out beyond that.)
Women who lead in the Church do so by charismatic authority, some personal quality that is recognized and attracts a following, eg Mother Teresa, Chittister. There influence is rarely institutionalized, except in the case of foundresses (or reformers). If women were to be ordained, women would be given leadership roles by bishops, who would control to some extent who could speak. I remember an outspoken theology student who advocated ordaining women, of whom it was said even if women were ordained, she would never be, So the hierarchy misses out on one important avenue for shaping women’s opinions.
What would make a difference, I think, is if there were parents in the hierarchy. More than women, parents would bring the proper horror at child abuse into the mainstream. This is the significance of these events for celibacy, not the arguments over the sexual fulfillment of the ordained imo.
BTW, JC’s observation is simply wrong. We almost never hear of women committing abuse, but that is not the same as saying women do not abuse. There are certainly documented cases of abuse by nuns, as well as female teachers and other professionals. And there is reason to suspect little of this is reported to authority figures.
“Woman, in fact, both religious and lay, by nature would have been more likely to defend young people in cases of sexual abuse.”-Lucetta Scaraffia
I was wondering what exactly Lucetta meant by that statement, but then she continues by stating that”We can hypothesize that a greater female presence, not at a subordinate level, could have been able to lift up the veil of “masculine”secrecy.
Before we consider what role secrecy, which is “genderless” played in the abuse crisis, we should first determine who exactly was behind that veil, least all Priests, as well as all those with a masculine identitiy become suspect.
The women the present hierarchs would pick as tokens in the short term would do nothing much to change the system. Toadies come in all sizes, shapes and genders. However women given more and more power access in the long term of years would be the best antidote to clericalism. The end of mandatory celibacy would seal the deal too. A two front assault is the way to go.. 5 years of that change would remake the Church governence VatII Catholics want.
While I am leary of gender essentialism and the kinds of stereotypes it can engender, I think that the approach to sexuality (and I mean sexuality in the broader sense of relationship, attraction, subtlety, etc.) remains decidedly different.
For example, take the biblical concept of virginity. Kathleen Norris writes that according to Andrea Dworkin, virginity, from a male frame of reference sees it as a state of passive waiting or vulnerability; it precedes and is antithetical to wholeness. But in the women’s frame, virginity is a fuller experience of selfhood and identity. In the male frame, virginity is virtually synonymous with ignorance; in the woman’s frame, it is recovery of the capacity to know by direct experience of the world.
It is a complicated question though because on the other hand, women can be very, very critical of other women. I recall during the OJ trial a consultant say that the people you want on a jury where an allegation of domestic violence is raised is middle aged women. This seemed very counter-intuitive but apparently women are more likely not to believe another woman than a man is. This may have more to do with inherent competitiveness between women in the area of sexuality but I am not sure. (cf. The Magdalen Laundry).
Still, there is not valid theological reason that women cannot be involved in the governance of the church. As I recall, in fact, Benedict XVI removed the aspect of “governance” in the character of priesthood. This is a very important symbolic move which should be followed by administrative actions/
I work with women in leadership, have collaborated with women for the last 25 years of my working life so it is very natural for me personally and I do think the Vatican is obviously impoverished by not having closer association with women. Afterall Jesus certainly did!
Inclusion, diversity – makes complete sense. How this happens; who is competent; qualified, etc. is another question and gets to Prof. Kaveny’s wise cautions.
If I may add from the business world – the inclusion of women and breaking the “glass ceiling” did not result in less financial shenanigans, illegal or less than moral decision-making, etc. My experience reporting to and working with women is not much different from men…….you have to understand that people are people – gender alone does not make them more moralistic, less open to complicity with illegalities, etc.
I am with Ed Gleason. Before women are given meaningful roles in Church governance you have to clean out the Vatican. Under the present regime we know which women would get chosen. They would be like Mary Ann Glendon, the Maciel supporter and defender, Mother Millea, from an obscure order in Hamden CT, put in charge of the “Visitation,” and Sara Butler, the only woman invited to the Synod on the Bible, even though she is not a biblical scholar, when there are plenty of competent women biblicists in the Catholic Biblical Association, who were passed over.
I was surprised to see here that 20% of sexual abuse was committed by women, and I stand corrected.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Offenders-Female_Sexual_Predators_awareness.aspx
I suppose it could be higher but people like me don’t believe it when victims say they were abused by women.
Even if we assume underreporting of female abuse, could it possible reach the levels of abuse by males?
George D.: Aren’t Andrea Dworkin’s descriptions of male and female frames of reference just the sort of generalizations that Cathy is questioning? Historically, I don’t think her description of the male frame with regard to virginity would hold true. I think here, for example, of the way in which St. Augustine spoke of virginity, of how he explained what St. Paul meant by speaking of the Church as a virgin.
I’d like to add the new America has an editorial supporting our women religious on health care.
Experience in ministry and real personal service shapes better perceptions than the burkes, Brandts, Tobins seem to offfer.
I am glad to see Bob Nunz reference to the address of Abp. Burke at Mundelien seminary criticizing nuns for their lack of”loyalty and obedience.”
here are a few excerpts from that speech courtesy of Lifesitenews (who would of course laud it):
Such demagoguery doesn’t leave much room for hope for the future of women within the Church let alone the Vatican.
Such fantasizing is really another way to discount women. Equality means that each sex can be equally saintly or devilish without restriction. Mary is so important to our tradition not because she is a lovely lady dressed in blue but because she was a woman who lived life fully in love of God and neighbor despite limited means.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea to suggest that all women are going to respond in lockstep on any particular question. ”
Can anybody read this blog and think that? :-0
Well, Jean, maybe the problem is that more people don’t read this blog!
There influence is rarely institutionalized, except in the case of foundresses (or reformers). If women were to be ordained, women would be given leadership roles by bishops, who would control to some extent who could speak.
Jim McK,
I think this is all cleared up in the online Catholic Encyclopedia article Woman, which may be summed up, I think, in the old saying, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and unless a woman is at home, she can’t rock the cradle and loses all her power.” The entire article is fascinating, but her is a good part about women in government:
Mundelein under George has gone down hill. It once was known and respected as a theological center of learning, discovery. It also was well known for liturgy (LTP) and pastoral training.
Not any more. It has been gutted by those who wield the “orthodoxy” wand. LTP is a shadow of itself.
The archdiocese on the other hand is spending millions to refurbish the “old” Quigley North Minor Seminary into archdiocesan offices (this spot is in the middle of the Gold Coast – high dollar land values). The current college house of studies on the Loyola University Lake Shore campus is being phased out and they are building a new college seminary at Mundelein – geez, another tens of millions for a free standing college way up north and isolated even though the move to house of studies has been going on for 20 years.??
Would any self-respecting theological, biblical, sacramental, or pastoral expert really want to teach at Mundelein given this recent history and environment? BYW – these building plans are not public knowledge; are not talked about; they just happen.
It’s doubtful that men hailed from Mars and women from Venus, but anyone who has been in an opposite sex relationship understands intuitively that “gender essentialism” is real. It defies definition, but to ignore it is akin to putting on blinders. That the church needs the countervailing force of the female gender to center it does not seem to be in question. How to best implement such radical change should be the subject of a discussion unto itself…I’ll take a pass for now.
Fr, K
Aren’t Andrea Dworkin’s descriptions of male and female frames of reference just the sort of generalizations that Cathy is questioning?
Yes they are. And I must admit to being ambivalent about the issue but I do have to agree with Dworkin on this one. If I had to take a position, I would have to say that the sex of the person does indeed colour how they view and see situations particularly as it pertains to sexuality, its expression and its meaning.
For that very reason, I have to say that women’s presence at leadership levels would bring a different sensibility to the issue. I think they would be able to access the existential effect that such abuse has on the lives of victims in greater sympathy.
I think even the mysticism of women is of a different type than men’s. Less intellectual, more affective and certainly connected with the body. I am thinking specifically of Theresa of Avilla and some of what I have read of her.
I certainly don’t want to say that sex doesn’t matter–or doesn’t shape experience or response. I believe in an epistemologically humble complementarity.
But I do want to say that generalizations about how people will behave are generalizations–and don’t always hold. It depends on a number of factors. Mollie’s point, I think, is crucial. Women who are in an institution, and who identify with it, are not necessarily going to protect the vulnerable rather than the institution. It doesn’t just hurt women to put them on some sort of pedestal.
The author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, it is my guess, would be very surprised to find out that many colleges now would like to have affirmative action programs for young MEN!
Indeed, the equality of women will be secure in all essentials when we are as free to be totally wrong and as crazy as the craziest guy!
“What would make a difference, I think, is if there were parents in the hierarchy. More than women, parents would bring the proper horror at child abuse into the mainstream. This is the significance of these events for celibacy, not the arguments over the sexual fulfillment of the ordained imo.”
Very, very important point, Jim McK!!
Fr. James Martin just said on CNN that he thinks that the Pope and bishops should not just make general apologies and do penance but should make specific apologies, and some (?) should resign. (He was clear about how many should resign.)
Yay, Fr. Martin!
Me, a married [25 years] father of a wonderful son and a daughter, for Bishop.
Me, a married father [55 years]a slew of children and grandchildren,[they stay in USA], for BISHOP,.. have own broom, will be busy cleaning the stables for a very short tenure. no Italian, little Latin.. big loud voice 6’4″. {very pushy wife, good at cleaning up messes]
She has ecclesial references..
Ed & Peg Gleason
I don’t want to overdo the gender differences, but find it interesting it was women judges who first and mainly ordered church archives unsealed. Hurrah for Constance Sweeney (Geoghan), and Leila Kern (Shanley) who opened the floodgates.
I shudder when I see The Magdalen Sisters quoted as a source. It is of course a collection of crude stereotypes, which the Vatican rightly denounced as “an audacious provocation”. I was a chaplain to the Good Shepherd convent in Drumcondra for six months in 1980 and visited the Magdalens there a few times. Anything remotely resembling the film — a B-movie in the female jailbreak genre — was not to be observed. There are tales of deep hurt, which have been told in at least one fine documentary film. To contextualize these stories, recall that care of the women — without resources to provide it — was imposed on the nuns by Church and State under obedience. As to gender, would it be true that the holy horror of sexual things was more prevalent among female religious than among priests and male religious?
Since seem to have opened the floor to nominations of parents to be bishops, let me ask a campaign question:
What will you do if your daughter, who has trained her whole life to follow in your footsteps, is found to be a pedophile? Would you protect her, or those who might become her victims? How easy will it be to accept the accusations? Is denial, in the face of evidence, a possibility for you?
I do not think anything is an easy answer in this situation. But involving parents seems like an important step.
I shudder when I see O’Leary’s dismissal of the Magdalen Sisters as “an audacious provocation”; here is an alumna’s take on the movie:
Quote from Mary Norris, survivor of Magdalen Asylum in Cork, quoted in the Irish Independent 3-9-03:
“Plenty of people will think the events in the film have been exaggerated to make it more dramatic. But I tell you, the reality of those places was a thousand times worse. There’s a scene in which a girl is crying in the dormitory and another goes over to her bed to comfort her. That could never have happened. You weren’t allowed any private conversation…
“Again, in the film the girls get glimpses of the outside world and even ordinary people who don’t live in the laundries. In reality, we were totally incarcerated. You could see nothing except sky.”
There is no context in which such cruel treatment can be explained away.
I highly doubt a chaplain would ever see the true nature of the institution.
The documentary, Sex in a Cold Climate, used to be available online. One possibility is: http://www.downtr.net/find/sex+in+a+cold+climate+documentary+about+magdalene+asylums.html
Google the title for others.
While everyone has certainly moved on to the next post, I must offer a tip of the hat to Ed & Peg. Experiential knowledge [as opposed to learned knowledge] is exactly what the church needs.
“I shudder when I see O’Leary’s dismissal of the Magdalen Sisters as ‘an audacious provocation’; . . .”
——
I thought it was illustrative of the callousness that enabled the laundries and the industrial schools to flourish for so many decades.
Callousness, because I dismiss an exploitative Hollywood product? How typical that the ersatz hollywoodization is preferred to the real thing.
By the way, thousands of women in France are defending Benedict XVI against the recent unjust accusations that many of you here have subscribed to uncritically.
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:nfV1NuTez_AJ:www.appelaverite.fr/+appelaverite.fr+jeanne+smits&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr
Lack of contextualization can have very deleterious effects. Lots of US movies that gave decontextualized pictures of Northern Irish situations fed into IRA propaganda and US financing of IRA terrorism.
I understand that the Magdalene laundries were initially built to provide occupation and shelter for prostitutes when the Irish government banned prostitution in the 1920s. It is worth reflecting that the women would probably have had shorter and more miserable lives otherwise.
That Irish parents handed their children over to these institutions later — in what numbers I don’t know — is a sad fact.
The nuns of the Good Shepherd Convent, Sunday’s Well, Cork, themselves institutionalized and incarcerated like the women in their charge, are remembered for their kindness, if I recollect correctly, in Frank O’Connor’s beautiful autobiographical memoir An Only Child. Now only the evil that men do is remembered, the good interred with their bones.
See http://www.amazon.com/Only-Child-Irish-Studies/dp/0815604505
Frank O’Connor, Minnie O’Donovan (a customer in my father’s shop), was an alumna of the Good Shepherd Convent orphanage, and used to visit the nuns there, regarding them as her friends. Of course what would she know about “the true nature of the institution”?
Oops, Frank O’Connor’s mother, I mean.
The basic contextualization required is the awareness that this was a policy totally accepted and implemented by the Irish people, State and Church. It was not a conspiracy of sadistic nuns. Had the film shown the nuns running an orphanage at the same time that might have dinted the image projected.
I query the claim that the girls had no contact with ordinary people; at least some of them dealt with the public in the laundries, taking their clothes and giving them back as in dry cleaners today; at least I have a dim memory of such contact as a child.
“That Irish parents handed their children over to these institutions later — in what numbers I don’t know — is a sad fact.”
———–
Another illustration of the callousnes that enabled the laundries and industrial “schools” to flourish for decades.
Has anyone forgotten Mayor Michael O’Brien’s testimony?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS257&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=clonmel+mayor+victim+of+industrial+school&btnG=Search
The following is from the third lead on the Google page, the Clerical Whispers one:
“Michael O’Brien was one of 13 children who received a visit from the “cruelty man”, an inspector for the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, after their mother died in 1942.
“Their father was out at work and by the time he returned, eight of the children had been taken to court and incarcerated in Roman Catholic-run institutions. When he tried to get them back, he was refused. Michael O’Brien, who was 8, remained at Ferryhouse in Clonmel, Tipperary, for eight years.”
“Of course what would she know about ‘the true nature of the institution’?”
————-
Probably more than she was willing to share with a shopkeeper. Ludicrous to deny the testimony of thousands of victims.
————
“. . . I have a dim memory of such contact as a child.”
The victims’ memories are not dim. Being kicked/raped/stripped/beaten/starved/etc. is hard to forget.
I don’t know exactly what gender essentialism is, but I’m pretty sure I’m for it.
It is not incongruous that some people will remember someone as a brute while others remember him fondly. Fr Murphy was remembered fondly by some of his students at the school for the deaf in Milwaukee, while 200 remembered him as a predator. So examples of people who remember a group of sisters fondly does not mean that the same sisters did not abuse other children. (it does not even mean that the sisters did not abuse those who remember them fondly; hostages often develop an affection for their kidnappers)
IOW, people are complex, in their actions and their memories. Film, like any narrative, is somewhat less complex and can not convey the whole reality of complex situations.
Gerelyn,
If you follow the link you will find the opening pages of the O’Connor book, where his mother’s friendship with the nuns is mentioned.
All I know about Mrs O’D's conversations with my father is that one day she came rushing into the shop looking for a precious manuscript she had mislaid there an hour earlier. “Here you are, Madam” said my dad as he handed over the manuscript of “The Road to Ummera.”
Let not the good be interred with their bones.
Oops, the title is “The Long Road to Ummera”, one of the most famous Irish short stories.
Der Spiegel is reporting today that Cardinal Ratzinger’s Vicar General, Gruber, who earlier had fallen on his sword to protect the Pope, is now telling his friends that he was pressured by the Bishop’s Conference to take the blame for reassigning the abusive priest, Peter H. Apparently he received a fax of the prepared statement he was supposed to use in accepting the blame, so as to take the Pope out of the “line of fire.” I am waiting to see how Weigel and the other apologists are going to handle this news.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,689580,00.html
Correction to my last post: it was the Archbishop’s Office and not the Bishop’s Conference that put the pressure on Gerhard Gruber.
Don’t miss Nicholas Kristof in today’s NY Times.
I just realized that Frank O’Connor’s mother would have been in the Good Shepherd orphanage in its early days. The penitentiary for fallen women he refers to would also have been in the first flush of the Rescue movement. When the Irish state shut down prostitution suddenly and totally the Magdalen system was probably overloaded. But that was long after. There may have been no abuse whatever in Minnie O’Donovan’s time.
(Strange that anyone would imagine the nuns would abuse the inmates in front of chaplains. Or forget that it was often parish priests and curates who placed girls in the laundries. Etc.)
http://silverstealth.fotopic.net/frame_collection_intro.php?id=1509609
That link provides a good introduction to the laundries for anyone who missed the televised testimonies of victims, the numerous articles, the various t.v. documentaries, etc. And it includes a bit about “Little Nellie of Holy God”. (I remember hearing of her many decades ago.)
http://users.erols.com/bcccsbs/bass/new_25magd.html
That link points out, as do many, the fact that the inmates’ relatives often didn’t know where they were. The priests drove them away to the laundries. The nuns changed their names. There’s also a bit about the bench in Stephen’s Green dedicated to the victims of the brutal system.
From that:
“The nuns have been at pains to point out that the Magdalen women were poor illiterate destitutes but I would dispute that totally”, Patricia McDonnell says. “My sister-in-law’s father had a farm, a butcher’s shop and a dairy herd which supplied all the people within a 10-mile radius with their daily milk.” In the early 1940s, the girl, Chrissie, was taken from a Galway village and driven by the local priest to a Magdalen laundry in Dun Laoghaire.
“Her parents had both died and she was the only daughter in a family of nine. She was 16. For some reason, the parish priest decided that this girl was “in moral danger”. He told her brother he’d got her a job in Dublin and the 21-year-old had no reason to doubt the priest’s integrity.
“She simply disappeared into the system. When her brother would inquire how she was the priest would suggest they ought to leave her alone. When she came out nearly 20 years later she was really in quite a disgusting condition and weighed about four stone.”
I would point out that the Magdalens I visited were women in their 70s or so. The high point of the Magdalen system was long over by then (1980).
The abuse of the women seems to have been chiefly built into the situation itself, and not the result of individual wicked and sadistic nuns as portrayed in the Mullan film.
And the situation was one created knowingly and deliberately by the government, church and people of Ireland, initially to give jobs and shelter to unemployable ex-prostitutes, and then as a hold-all for “fallen women” of all sorts, for whom there was no place in Irish society (something like pedophiles today). All of it is rooted in the horror of sex that prevailed in the Free State (whereas in the early 19th century Dublin was a city of rampant sexual license, as shown in Joyce — another form of abuse, which the post-1922 puritans thought they were cleaning up).
I would see the nuns as victims of this system, and I am sure that many of them did their best according to their lights and the rule of their order.
There were some young nuns in the Good Shepherd convent during my stint as chaplain — they were very much in the Vatican II style of acting and thinking — including the mother superior.
It was always obvious that the Vicar General of Munich was falling on his sword to take the Pope out of the line of fire; an erudite church observer denounced it to me as a clumsy and dishonest ploy, but par for the course.
I see a Rene Girard has signed the French Appel — is this THE Rene Girard, the analyst of scapegoating?
Ratzinger has angered many people, but on the sex abuse front he seems actually to have been more effective than most bishops since making it a major plank of his activity in 2001.
“. . . a hold-all for ‘fallen women’ of all sorts, for whom there was no place in Irish society (something like pedophiles today).”
———–
Prostitutes do not rape children. Their customers are consenting adults who do not wake up “pumping sweat” decades later like the victims of pedophiles.
Re: Gruber: Why is the Pope not speaking up about the Munich affair and others where his name came up? Because every one around him is lying through their teeth, and if he said something about it, he’d have to either lie or expose the lies. Silence is his way out.
I find that cowardly and am starting to lose a bit of respect for that man, our pope.
Claire: You begin with a question, a good one; but I guess it was rhetorical, because your second sentence indicates you already know the answer, and on that basis conclude that he is acting (or not acting) in a cowardly manner. Isn’t this a little hasty?
Father Komonchak: you’re determined to stay hopeful envers et contre tout. But when does willful optimism morph into delusion?
(And, yes, you’re right that I do have a short temper. Is it so obvious? But by tomorrow I’ll have a new supply of patience and goodwill towards Pope Benedict. Just not today.)
Today’s Gospel reminded me of Pope Benedict: the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is the clever one, always the first to understand what’s going on, but he doesn’t really do much of anything. (Peter is slower to figure things out, but once he does, he acts immediately.)
Claire and JAK –
I’m constantly quoting “Judge not” on the net because there are so many accusations of sin when there isn’t enough evidence to justify it.. I mean cases of insufficient or ambiguous evidence.
But it seems to me that in the real world there are times when we are morally bound to call a spade a spade. Justice and well-ordered institutions require it. But what constitutes unambiguous and sufficient evidence? Surely we shouldn’t be silent until there is a smoking gun for the reason that smoking guns are rare while sins and crimes are not.
There is the saying which is generally accepted as wise, “Where there is smoke there’s fire’. So what is the choking point, the point at which we ought to act? It seems to me that there reaches a point that we have a duty to question, even investigate someone who seems probably guilty of a serious offense which affects the community. If there isn’t such a point, then police are not justified either. But how do we identify when we have evidence which is morally sufficient, even obligatory, to question someone? And what is the point when indictment is in order? (The lawyers here could probably help us with these questions.)
I don’t know the general answer, but I’m quite sure that Pope Benedict, for whom I have respect as a theologian and fondness as someone empathetic with at least *some* (but not all) suffering creatures, at this point ought to be questioned about his actions and inactions, which pile up by the day.
Thanks to Alan for bringing this new piece of skulduggery to our attention. I am not surprised, frankly. I am grateful that it has come out into the open.
As for Peggy Noonan, I think the importance of her article is as a weather vane, not as an argument. It may be irrational or not well-founded or not consistent, but the fact that this conservative voice is calling for a greater participation of women in higher decision-making in the Church is significant. The abuse crisis is the stimulus, but this isn’t perhaps only about that.
I ask myself how does change happen in those murky regions where the status quo isn’t so rational itself? Not perhaps by better arguments, but when more people find the alternative starts looking plausible without watertight arguments and perhaps without arguments at all. “Rhetorically powerful” Cathleen notes. This says something.
Ann (and Claire): I don’t have a problem with people questioning the Pope’s actions, or lack of action, and I confess I don’t know how to explain it, and I wish he were living up to the wonderful statement I quoted from him on another thread. But I wouldn’t begin, with the accusation that everyone around him is lying through his teeth. But I understand Claire’s point about differing days, different moods…
Please, Alan, someone, provide a full translation of Der Spiegel beyond what the tracker has, where Gruber is finding his stride:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,689580,00.html
This reminds me of McCormack trying a similar cya move, with text ready to sign, but the priest would have none of it, bless him. How things really operate in chanceries…
Imagine if Benedict had told the full truth instead of allowing Gruber to take the fall. Now that is something I could respect. Tom Doyle and many others know how the Vatican operates, but I pray Gruber finds the courage to speak openly, despite what must be excruciating pressure to keep his mouth shut. You need to take better care of the fall guy if it is going to work.
Now that last paragraph is full of conclusions drawn without the smoking gun, though the smoke is certainly rising. I feel I have been through too many instances where evidence of bishops’ complicity and yes, criminal conduct, far outweighed any reasonable charitable interpretation. Just read enough documents, grand jury, AG investigations and depositions as counterpoint.
I can live with honesty, a genuine confession, repentance and penance, but never the deceptive spin.
Gerelyn missed the point of my pedophiles comment — which is that social disapprobation of exprostitutes seemed as normal in Ireland then as our attitude to pedophiles seems normal now; both attitudes have a touch of scapegoating. For instance the equation “pedophile” and “child rapist” is misleading, since “molestation” is a more correct description in most cases. Just as today we believe that prostitutes are compulsive sex offenders who are incurable, so back then a fallen woman carried the taint all her life and could only live as a penitent.
I notice that some of the abuses that sound horrific to us today are actually imitations of convent discipline. The imposed silence echoes the Solemn Silence that in my seminary lasted from 8.30 pm to 8.30 am and the silence to be observed at many other times. The imposition of new names, including male ones, echoes the sisters’ acquisition of new names, including male ones like Benedict, Aloysius, John Vianney, Peter, Philip. The forbidding of private conversation echoes the convent discipline against particular friendships; in my seminary as long as the old discipline lasted, private conversation would be possible only during the recreation periods; students did not visit each others’ rooms, and if they happened to the door was to remain open. Calling the nuns “mother” and being called “child” by them echoes the absurd situation in which 80 years old men call newly ordained 24 year olds “Father” and priests calls bishops “my Lord” — it is meant to establish securely defined social relationships, giving the “mother” a sense of responsibility and the “daughter” a sense of obedience. Note that if the nuns expected obedience, they also lived under strict obedience. If a sexual life was forbidden and in fact made impossible to the Magdalenes, the same was doubly true of the nuns.
The Gruber story fills the first 4 paragraphs — friends of his (not Gruber himself) report that he complains of the pressure he was put under to take the pope out of the line of fire and act as a scapegoat. He was allowed to make amendments to the faxed statement but he is annoyed that his role has been characterized in a way he never consented to.
Gruber expressed his annoyance in a letter to friends; I doubt if he wanted it made public. What annoyed him was the statement that he had been guilty of eigenmaechtiges Handeln — acting on his own initiative or taking the law into his own hands.
Actually this procedure is probably common in companies as well — the guy who goes on tv, takes full responsibility and even weeps (at least in Japan) is not necessarily the one who is personally responsible.
Can someone make sure that comments from priests are at least clearly identified as such?
People on this blog generally identify themselves however they see fit. Priests are people too.
It seems to me to be important information in the context of this discussion. Especially when a commenter displays agitation with rapid fire comments. I think OLeary is a priest. But I can’t say for sure.
Back to Gruber: “the pressure he was put under to take the pope out of the line of fire” implies to me Ratzinger was actually very much IN the line of fire.
I recall Tom Doyle’s rejoinder to the effect: Tell the vicar to find a different line; it’s just not believable.
Back to disco. Is that your real name?
Michael, cut it out.
OK mom. But I will always maintain that the only way to consider the source is to know who she is. Michael Gonyea.
“the pressure he was put under to take the pope out of the line of fire” implies to me Ratzinger was actually very much IN the line of fire.”
I’m sure neither of them can remember who did what. Who can remember what they said or did in a meeting thirty years ago? I can’t remember what I did in meetings I participated in last year. If you showed me my handwriting on something I wrote, I still probably wouldn’t remember it, unless it was something really memorable.
Clearly, the diocese’s putting pressure on Gruber to take the fall looks awful. If they did. I’m a pretty big fan of Spiegel, but this kind of makes the NYT look like a paragon of responsible journalism. Gruber’s unnamed friends said that Gruber said that some unnamed individual called from the diocese and said …
” I still probably wouldn’t remember it, unless it was something really memorable.”
Felapton –
I think you have touched on what to the majority of us is the crux of this and similar problems: many bishops and curial administrators considered ogres like Fr. H. to be trivial and, therefore, forgettable problems. If they were genuinely concerned about the children, they couldn’t forget such a man.
For a bit of humor – Disco is for real, misspelled French – Disceault. My husband told me his great grandfather, a potato farmer, made the spelling phonetic after moving to upstate NY from Canada. There once was a Disco, NY – the local post office at a room in his relative’s home. There’s even a postmark on old mail as proof.
One-liner, “I’m a real swinger” which is generally received as good fun by maitre d’s as they seat a soon-to-be septuagenarian.
My children hit middle school just as disco music broke out, so that was a different story.
Well said Ann. In my opinion, you have identified the crux. Michael
Ann,
Or how routine was a sex abuser in the line of chancery duty? It would seem to stand out, IMHO, with a psychiatrist repeatedly warning the archdiocese about Hullermann.
Carolyn, I’m speechless. God bless you. My last name was similarly butchered. Michael Gonyea
I think priests are expected to identify themselves as such when in public (the collar), wonder what that implies for blogging.
Mark–Keep up the good work.
Vincent Twomey has a glowing review of his Doktorvater’s pontificate — and keeps calling Kung’s letter “atrocious”. Here is what Vincent says about the sex abuse scandal:
“In recent weeks, his record as pope has been overshadowed by what seems to be a concerted attempt by the media to use the revolting phenomenon of clerical sexual abuse to besmirch his name. It did not take long for the finger of accusation to be pointed at the pope – and with a venom that surpassed all the earlier attacks. These culminated in Hans Küng’s “encyclical” to the world’s bishops rubbishing his record as pope and claiming that “the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005)”. Vatican correspondent John L Allen jnr, who coined the phrase “Enforcer of the Faith”, asserts the opposite: “For those who have followed the church’s response to the crisis, Ratzinger’s 2001 letter is . . . seen as a long overdue assumption of responsibility by the Vatican, and the beginning of a far more aggressive response. Whether that response is sufficient is, of course, a matter for fair debate, but to construe Ratzinger’s 2001 letter as no more than the last gasp of old attempts at denial and cover-up misreads the record.” Pope Benedict’s response to the publication of the Ryan and Murphy reports was swift and decisive, though this is not always appreciated. He took the unprecedented step of summoning the Irish bishops to Rome to account before him and some of his major co-workers for their actions (or rather inaction). He wrote an unprecedented letter to the Catholics of Ireland calling for a spiritual renewal and promising an “Apostolic Visitation” that, presumably, will deal with more concrete matters.”
Some speculate that Vincent himself will be the apostolic visitor.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0419/1224268628613.html
Michael and Mark Proska — you sound pretty odious when you carp about “priests” — it’s the kind of insidious resentful anticlericalism among certain laity that contibutes to driving many good men out of the priesthood, IMHO.
I agree with you father. JP2 swept it all under the rug. Benedict is too smart, but he now has to clean up the mess that was left to him. Michael Gonyea
This is how it starts (thanks to a good German-speaking friend):
“Gruber’s close associates described now to SPIEGEL, [how] he might have been pressed to be the
scapegoat for the Pope. The concern was “to remove the Pope from the line of fire.” As the affair leaked out in the middle of March, Gruber complained to friends that he was urgently “asked,” in a telephone call, to take on the full responsibility. In a letter Gruber wrote to his close associates, [he told them that] he had received a prepared statement by fax. He was able to suggest emendations [to the statement]. He found it, however to be a great annoyance in the way his role was presented by the diocese, that he was accused of acting on his own authority. Also, the expression “acting on his own authority” was not agreed to by him. Up to now Gruber himself had taken full responsibility.”
Then bit by bit, more comes out, unless of course the hammer comes down in a thud. Gruber has it in his power to say who he dealt with, and what was said, but he also has it in his power to cooperate in a “clarification” of some kind that denies or spins the whole matter.
Who and what gets to Gruber is key. I can’t imagine the archdiocesan office is not busy right now trying to nip this in the bud. Let’s see what creative response materializes. Or, the decision could be not to give it more air, hoping it dies. Is another fax on its way to Gruber as we speak?
The pattern is that something is put out, which may lead to more; solid hunches, some data though not complete, smoke but no smoking gun. Regarding the whole scandal, it was Kristen Lombardi of the Boston Phoenix, not the Boston Globe, which started the ball rolling. Her pioneering series paved the way, but she did not have the documents. It took the Globe to spend the $1 million to secure those, and then the floodgates opened. But it was Kristen’s effort that broke the ice. Watergate started the same way, bits and drabs.
Time will tell. Even O’Leary didn’t buy Gruber’s spin: “It was always obvious that the Vicar General of Munich was falling on his sword to take the Pope out of the line of fire; an erudite church observer denounced it to me as a clumsy and dishonest ploy, but par for the course.”
As pope, yes, Benedict has sat up much straighter than JPII, and that is to the good. Whether those moves are really “no-brainers” as John Allen wrote many conclude, is the question. We went from minus zero to plus three, so let’s be grateful, but expansively so, when the key question of bishop accountability is ignored? Having to be dragged into a last minute addition to the Vatican guidelines that reporting to civil authorities where required is recommended confirms for me that nothing much happens without tremendous outside pressure.
Benedict actually wept with the victims of sex abuse in Malta: http://paparatzinger3-blograffaella.blogspot.com/2010/04/rabbia-ed-odio-spazzati-via-dalle.html
“Smoke but no smoking gun” — quite so. Gruber of course bore SOME responsibility for handling the Hullermann case, as did others such as personnel chief Fr Fahr (d. 2008); it is still not clear what role Benedict played, if any, after his January 1980 acceptance of Hullermann into the archdiocese.
The promptitude of Gruber’s acceptance of responsibility was in such stark contrast to the general slowness of people, including bishops, to do so, that it could plainly be interpreted as a gesture of loyalty to the former archbishop.
I think Ratzinger missed a prophetic opportunity. In his letter to the Irish people he could have said, “I, too, have made mistakes.”
The Vatican are now been thrown under the bus by the reactionary bishops they promoted to positions of great power:
“AFTER CONSULTING THE POPE… I wrote a letter to the bishop congratulating him as a model of a father who does not hand over his sons,” the daily La Verdad quoted Castrillon Hoyos as telling the conference on Friday, to a ROUND OF APPLAUSE FROM THE ASSEMBLED PRELATES, priests and lay people. “THE HOLY FATHER AUTHORIZED ME to send this letter to all bishops in the world and publish it on the internet.”
*
Castrillon Hoyos’s letter, written in French in 2001, praised Bishop Pierre Pican of Bayeux-Lisieux for not denouncing a French priest who was later sentenced to 18 years in jail for the repeated rape of a boy and sexual assaults on 10 others. Pican, who received a suspended three-month jail sentence for not denouncing sexual abuse of minors, admitted in court he had kept Rev. Rene Bissey in parish work despite the fact the priest had privately admitted committing pedophile acts.”
Pope John Paul II, that was.
A dubious ploy in an Osservatore Romano article: Benedict is offering spiritual guidance as Pope but the media are unable to hear what he is saying and are annoyed with him for not following their agenda: http://paparatzinger3-blograffaella.blogspot.com/2010/04/lucetta-scaraffia-la-liberta-del-papa.html
More on papal tears: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2769
“We went from minus zero to plus three, so let’s be grateful, but expansively so, when the key question of bishop accountability is ignored? Having to be dragged into a last minute addition to the Vatican guidelines that reporting to civil authorities where required is recommended confirms for me that nothing much happens without tremendous outside pressure.”
Is bishop accountability ignored? The letter to the Irish did not ignore it. OTOH accepting bishops’ resignations is only a surface response. Bishops have to get their act together.
Ann Oliver: I hope I did not give the impression that I am not appalled and disgusted by hierarchs who considered ogres like Fr. H trivial and forgettable. But it is no longer possible to identify who has forgotten what in the ensuing thirty years. Nobody who is currently in the diocese could have been present at the meeting; many of those who were are dead; the rest are not exactly eager to volunteer information now. Sometimes even very important things are lost to memory, even within only thirty years.
Spiegel is terrific on a lot of subjects. I really like their cover stories on historical and archaeological topics. On subjects like the Vikings, the Neanderthals, “Who was Arminius?”, the Himmelsschiebe of Nebra, they often have fifteen or twenty pages with maps and photographs and multi-paragraph commentary from top-notch experts. However, they are reflexively anti-American and almost as reflexively anti-religion. On this subject, at this point in time, they have all the credibility of a Maureen Dowd column.
If this is all they can find to accuse the Pope of, I conclude that he was hardly in on the cover-up.
Michael: Yes, the guy who asserts the moral equivalence of pedophilia and prostitution is a Catholic priest. It doesn’t get much more odious than that. (I’m not outing anybody. He has repeatedly identified himself as such on other threads.)
So Mr Felapton, you see nothing wrong with prostitution? You’s say it’s just innocent consensual sex?
Anyway, the point I was making — which you seem unable to grasp — is that in condemning and cracking down on moral evils we often risk scapegoating people. Read Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure on this.
Certainly the prostitutes were victims and their clients — including Joyce, Gogarty etc. etc. — were never treated as tainted, unmentionables etc. So perhaps what you intend to say is that though prostitution is evil we should blame the payer at least as much as the payee. Now we gleefully treat all people accused or convicted of sexual behavior with minors as tainted, demonically depraved etc., falling for the same scapegoating that produced millions of “fallen women” in the past.
And we have no concern for the practical consequences. An expert in The Tablet claims that defrocking priests automatically worsens the problem, often leaving desperate, unemployable men on the loose for more serious abuses than those that got them defrocked.
I agree with the “obnoxious” poster however on Der Spiegel — it’s recent article on Der fehlbare Papst was a tired rehash of the usual laundry list, dumped on the pages without any effort at repristination.
JSO’L:
Of course I see what is wrong with prostitution. Franz Schubert was writing the best music he had ever written in his life when he died prematurely of syphilis. How much great music did the world lose because he couldn’t restrain himself from visiting a prostitute? Prostitution is wrong.
Prostitution is wrong, but pedophilia is an atrocity. The two are not comparable. Prostitution is an evil committed by consenting adults. Pedophilia is a violent assault on an absolutely innocent and defenseless individual.
Command, counsel, consent, concealment, provocation, praise, participation, silence, defense of the evil done. Congratulations, buddy, you’re batting at least .333 in this game.
Felapton, your first paragraph reminds me of a remark (from Lombardi, maybe?) I saw a couple of weeks ago saying that since many of the people who were in Munich when Father H. arrived there are now dead, it was “impossible” to establish what Cardinal Ratzinger’s involvement might have been.
I found that remark bizarre and yours is similar. For affairs involving Pope John Paul II we are reduced to gathering indirect information, but regarding Pope Benedict, why not ask him directly? What’s “impossible” about that? If his memory fails him, so be it, but we don’t know until he says so.
My present impression is that Pope Benedict, now in 2010, has let a subordinate take the blame for him without speaking up to take his own share of responsibility. Not a big deal in terms of actual consequences for Fr Gruber, and certainly common in politics, but it is something that we do not do among my family and friends. It’s a matter of principle. We consider it dishonorable.
Prostitution is wrong not because of the risk of disease, but because of the lives prostitutes are forced to lead. It is misleading to call prostitutes consenting adults. I think you will find very few survivors of prostitution who say they freely chose the life, or that they enjoyed it, or that they kept their self-respect. And very, very often prostitution is associated with violence, imprisonment, slavery, and trafficking. The male client always imagines that the woman is enjoying it and that he is doing her a favor. He is shocked if he is accused of using her as a victim. This self-deception keeps the prostitution racket going just as another kind of (worse) self-deception keeps the pedophilia business going.
Claire,
Well, that’s a valid point. Letting Gruber take the fall does not look good. I think “dishonorable” is a little heavy. We can safely trust the secularist media to insult the Pope, so I don’t see why Catholics shouldn’t try to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He’s traveling. He’s tired. He’s busy. He doesn’t read Spiegel, certainly not on Sundays. He’s thinking about what the answer should be. And who is to ask him? His staff? Not likely. Could you ever ask him a thing like that, if you had his email address? What would you say? Could you really bring yourself to say the word “pedophile” to the Pope?
I’m on the fence about Benedict. I admire his homilies immensely. I’m embarrassed by his bathetic transports of self-pity. (The less said about his taste in vestments the better.) But if he resigns or dies of a broken heart, it will not improve the situation. When Celestine V resigned, we got that treasure Boniface, you know.
Der Spiegel today http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,689761,00.html
No wonder Gruber needs a vacation.
Joseph O’Leary–
That has to be the first time I’ve ever been accused of anti-clericalism. I think of myself as anti-anti-clerical, but I’m sorry you thought me carping, odiously. Actually, it was a straight-up question–are priests expected to present themselves as priests when they are in public? I thought I heard somewhere that they were. Perhaps other professions are supposed to do the same–I’m not sure.
Apparently, Father OLeary is allowed to refer to my comment as ‘odious’. But when I describe his as being equally so, the moderator, I presume it’s you mom, deletes my post. Forgive me father for I have sinned. I will never again refer to your comments as odious. Gonyea
Thank you Disco for the link to Der Spiegel. As i’ve said previously, Benedict is not the problem. God bless him. But I hope and pray that he can see the presence of women and married people as the only countervailing force that can steer the Church back to the right path. Gonyea
“And who is to ask him? His staff? Not likely. Could you ever ask him a thing like that, if you had his email address? What would you say? Could you really bring yourself to say the word “pedophile” to the Pope?”
Felapton —
Yes, indeed, I could and more important, I SHOuLD challenge the powers that be when children are being destroyed psychologically, and, worst of all, when the cover=ups have been done to be done systematically by JP II and others colluded with him they need to be called out with trumpets.
Why don’t you take Jesus seriously?? He said such people should have millstones tied around their necks and then drowned. And you couldn’t bear to let the word “pedophile” said to these creeps? Shame, shame, shame! Yes, I’ll say it — JP II was a creep, and a hypocrite too, given his claims of concern for young people. I used to think he was a saint, in spite of his indifference to Church administration. I don’t think so any more.
Michael–
Mom always liked me best. ;-)
Michael,
In my experience Cathleen Kaveny has shown herself a very articulate, knowledgeable and effective contributor and moderator on dotCommonweal.
Please do not refer to Prof. Kaveny or Cathleen as “mom” in your posts; it is not helpful. Moderators have a difficult task with all the strong opinions here.
FWIW, O’Leary drives me up a wall too, and I find his comments infuriating, never mind odious, but it’s a crazy world out there, and I am of course never crazy.
Thanks Disco. I have the greatest respect for Cathleen. It does however bother me when a certain person’s odious comments are allowed, and my own are deleted.
Mark-
She was right to do so.
Mollie Wilson O’Reiily
…I think it’s only true (or only seems true) that women would have sided with the victims over protecting the institution because women are not represented in the hierarchy. If women had had more power and authority, they’d also have had more incentive to protect themselves just as the men did.
I agree. I think the notion put forth by Peggy Noonan is based on the conservative stereotype of the woman as the perpetual handmaiden to power and a bastion of moral rectitude. To me, Elizabeth I, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi proved that the imperatives of power are not dependant on crude biological distinctions. Don’t confuse femininity with gender.
The notion that women of the Church would have “cleaned house” in the hierarchical old boys club is based on a demeaning stereotype. Much of i
Considering the time change and all, Oleary won’t be up for a few hous. I do hope that he continues to weigh in. I find his comments provocative. Gonyea
I haven’t deleted anything on this post.
But please, no ad hominem remarks. No interrogations.
The thread has strayed well beyond its original point-and I’m happy to keep it open as long as you all keep it civil.
For the record: blame the deletions on me. “Michael,” I think you ought to take a break from being provoked — and yes, calling anybody “mom” is a temptation you might want to resist if you want to see your comments stand.
Ann,
You could not. I know you think you could, but you are deceiving yourself. At the last moment, you would choke on some tiny little fragment of filial piety you didn’t even know you had, and you’d find yourself saying, “Um, what lovely vestments, Your Holiness” instead.
Law is a creep in my book. Sodano is a creep. Egan – creep. Bertone – probably a creep. JPII is dead, God rest his, yes, somewhat creepy soul.
Benedict is not a creep. All the evidence presented so far indicates he has never molested anybody, never tolerated a molester, maybe not ferreted out one molester as vigorously as he might have, but that’s a long way from being a creep. There’s a whole crowd of monsters in this Church and you’re aiming your last round at a rabbit.
Nobody is being destroyed psychologically anymore. No parent or teacher will ever report a crime to the bishop instead of the police again. No police department will ever turn the report over to the bishop instead of the prosecutor again. We have all been shockingly obtuse for a shockingly long time, but some of us have got it at last, and Benedict is one of the ones who got it.
Mollie–I’m cool.I have but one mom, and she is gloriously spectacular. Gonyea
Cathy-Oleary’s statement criticisizing Mark and i was clearly ad hominem. I pledge to never refer to any person other than my mom as mom. Thank you Mollie for your advice.
Provoked,
MG
“The difficulty with her construct (as shown by the example of Margaret Thatcher) is that so long as women are chosen by men, they will likely demonstrate the qualities that men (or at least male leaders) value.”
Ok, this is the part where I get confused. I actually think there’s wisdom in this statement. But doesn’t it imply that men “think a certain way”? So, why can’t the same be true of women? Why is it bad to recognize, appreciate, seek out, value (put on a pedestal, if you will) that certain something? Deal with it, ladies.
I think it’s legitimate to generalize as long as the generalization arises from knowledge and abstraction from the individuals in the group and not some sort of mandate of the group that’s put on the individual. I gather that’s the gender essentialism that Cathleen is objecting to. For example, women on the whole may have certain characteristics in common that individual women do not have; as long as you don’t make the individual fit the group (e.g., you’re not ‘womanly’ unless you behave thus and so) then generalizing shouldn’t be a problem.
The idea of women in the hierarchy paints such a different world (on so many different levels!) that it probably is safe to also imagine that they would be more protective of the young, not because of any big maternal thing but because of plain old common sense and lack of the allergy to evidence the bishops seem to have. The differing reactions of the bishops and the nuns on the healthcare debate point to this.
You could also probably make the same generalization about *parents* in the hierarchy.
And pedestals? Eh, they’re a little creepy. The thought is nice, but you can have them ;-)
The idea of women in the hierarchy paints such a different world (on so many different levels!) that it probably is safe to also imagine that they would be more protective of the young, not because of any big maternal thing but because of plain old common sense and lack of the allergy to evidence the bishops seem to have.
I’d like to believe that but I don’t think so unless there are other fundamental changes in the hierarchy. But,as you say, the accession of women to position of power would probably be the product of seismic organizational and cultural changes anyway. I’m willing to believe that such changes can occur but I also believe that, for better or worse, men and women are prone to wield power in the same way. I don’t see a gender-specific charism in that regard. If I’m wrong, well, vive la difference.
I conjecture that much of the current inertia is due to the baggage of the people in position of authority. They’re old enough that many or most of them have probably had occasions in the past when they have shuffled child abusers around. They like to think that they, personally, have done nothing wrong. Change would require them the painful recognition of the errors of their past and their share of indirect responsibility in child abuse. I believe that that explains a lot of their reluctance.
In Ireland, Abp. Martin, who is remarkably outspoken and whose integrity shines, has the big advantage over the other bishops that he only started there a few years ago, and before that was in Vatican positions removed from issues of child abuse. How loudly would he speak if he had been in Ireland his whole life and had committed his share of “mistakes”? I bet that he would then be much more tentative in his condemnations.
So any fresh blood will help get things moving unencumbered by the weight of that baggage from the past. Women, younger men, either would help. Of course, the alternative would be, for the current hierarchy, honest self-examination and public repentance for personal failures, that would set them free from that weight, but unless Pope Benedict shows the way, I don’t imagine that happening.