Benedict: ‘Forgiveness does not substitute justice.’
May 11, 2010, 10:01 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Pope Benedict to reporters on the flight to Lisbon:
Attacks on the pope and the church come not only from outside the church, but the suffering of the church comes from inside the church, from sins that exist inside the church. This we have always known but today we see it in a really terrifying way.
(…)
The greatest persecution of the church does not come from the enemies outside, but is born from sin inside the church. The church has a profound need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn on the one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice. And forgiveness does not substitute justice.
Read the rest of Rachel Donadio’s report here.
“Forgiveness does not substitute for justice”?
John Allen has it that “forgiveness does not exclude justice.”
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/sex-abuse-crisis-terrifying-pope-says
I haven’t found the Italian yet or the audio, bu if he said “non sostituisce la giustizia” then I think you might translate it “does not replace justice.” But one can quibble.
BTW, quick take: Schonborn 1, Sodano 0. (And bonus points to media purveyors of “petty gossip.”)
Maybe I’m reading too much into Benedict’s words, but I see him equating “attacks on the pope” with “persecution of the church”.
I’m not convinced “the church” is being persecuted, and I’m not at all easy with this pope describing his critics as attacking him.
I do believe that “the church” — as both institution and body of believers — is its own worst enemy. I see ecclesial dysfunction. I see expressions of alarm and concern. I see handwringing. I see anger and frustration. I see people leaving the church.
But I do not see much willingness by Catholics in the pews to stop their enabling behaviors.
Maybe I’m off base here, but “forgiveness does not substitute for justice” doesn’t seem like a non sequitur to me. Perhaps the Pope is alluding to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where forgiveness has to be followed by satisfaction, i.e., justice, in the sense that there is a debt owed by the person seeking absolution that must be paid. In modern times, the satisfaction/justice is the recitation of prayers (e.g., 5 Our Fathers, 5 Hail Marys), the reading of Scripture, etc. The Pope is thinking bigger, ISTM, when he alludes to “purification” of the Church as a whole as the debt that must be paid for forgiveness of the sins resulting from the sex abuse scandal.
He said to reporters, “Attacks on the pope . . . ”
Did he mean, “Your attacks on me . . . “?
(Did he mention attacks on children?)
Magister has the Italian, and the phrase is “Il perdono non sostituisce la giustizia”.
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2010/05/11/fatima-2010-la-visione-realmente-terrificante-di-papa-benedetto/
Il perdono non sostituisce la giustizia
Callas’s version, recorded live at La Scala in 1957, is hair raising.
So what does justice mean here?
Cf. remarks from Bishop Martin in Ireland today about there being many who don’t want truth to come out.
Benedict was asked, on the place to Portugal, about the 3rd secret of Fatima, which had been interpreted as foretelling a violent attack on the Pope, and which had been applied more generally to the suffering of “the pope”. It is in that context that he talked about the suffering of Popes and generalized it to suffering in the Church.
He is not the one who limited the image to ‘the pope’. He generalized from their to the suffering of the Church from the sin within the Church: “The suffering of the church also comes from within the church, because sin exists in the church. This too has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way.” I would assume that when he says the attacks from within are terrifying, he is identifying with the suffering of the innocent in the Church.
Words, words, words.
Interesting interpretation, Jim. I see what you mean. I wonder why he couldn’t have said that plainly.
Some things he’s capable of explaining in simple terms — purgatory, e.g.
And I wonder why he takes some things so literally — Fatima, the shroud of Turin — and other things — purgatory — figuratively/poetically/metaphorically.
Bob Nunz, where did you see Abp Martin’s remarks?
I do wish Benedict would speak more plainly, more “humanly,” on this topic, and perhaps take some questions from reporters. It would help in clarifying what he means and, as SNAP and others would like, what he means to do.
Magister again notes that in his 2000 commentary on the Third Secret of Fatima, Ratzinger voiced much the same views as he did today, trying to take the focus off the person of the pope (John Paul and his near-assassination, in this case) and on its significance for everyone to choose conversion and a new course.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1343239?eng=y
That is consonant with Benedict’s discomfort with the “rock star” papacy, I think, though one might wish he’d step up to the mike on occasions like this and speak as clearly as he has on other topics.
David Gibson:
Thanks for the reference to the Italian text. The original is perfectly intelligible, but the English version is a hash that could easily lead to Joseph J’s interpretation. Also Donadio does not give the context–the famous third secret–and that is important for getting the right interpretation of his words.
I disagree with BXVI on several things but his distaste for JPII’s rock star performances, if you have it right, is something I have to applaud.
PS: Bob Nunz, I found it, thanks.
http://dublindiocese.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1901&Itemid=935
Long, and worth it, every bit.
However, one slices it these are stirring words by Benedict. As he says we have always known the criticism from within e.g. the prophets. But it is hard to escape the fact that his remarks are under the gun and he has no choice. Just goes to show the reality of life that most of us do not come clean until the pressure is on. That is indeed a sin.
“We have invested in structures of religious education which despite enormous goodwill are not producing the results that they set out to do. Our young people are among the most catechised in Europe but among the least evangelised.”
Archbishop Martin of Ireland.
I have always said this about Catholic schools. Best Cathechized and the least evangelized. Close the schools. Work on the parents in the parishes. Almost impossible to evangelize the children without the parents.
Bill M. – I kinda, sorta agree with you.
Blaming Catholic schools for poorly evangelized students is akin to blaming public schools for their students failing to meet No Child Left Behind standards. Maybe some of the culpability attaches to teachers or schools, but both are reflections of problems that the schools by themselves are unable to address.
Fatima, Schatima!
It’s amazing how self-pity works its way into every aspect of this mess. Woe is me; poor pope; poor church. Sinful blah blah blah.
Sin is easy to deal with. Criminal behavior isn’t so fungible and forgiven by society.
Until heads role and true repenitence takes place, I’ll echo Claire above: words, words, words.
Jim,
I don’t blame the teachers nor the schools. I blame the mentality that takes advantage of children having to obey and give the appearance that they believe what they are doing. They invariably, except for a minute few, stop their involvement as soon as they graduate 8th grade. They follow their parents in not attending and not taking faith serously.
What kind of situation do you have when the children attend every week while the parents attend only mandatory functions?
Stirring words, indeed. But why on earth (or why in Heaven’s name) has it taken Rome so long to realize the sinfulness lies within the church? The point has been made over and over by various voices in the US (to say nothing of other places) for years — Commonweal’s voice among them. Most of them lay voices, of course, and it’s pretty clear the leadership has no time to listen to those whom it considers its “children”.
To paraphrase an Irish lady on the Lehrer show tonight, when you have a bunch of old men (actually they aren’t all old), all formed precisely the same way, and simply echoing each other’s ideas, is it any wonder that they go astray?
Better late then never to realize the truth, perhaps; let’s hope it’s not too late. And let’s see what, if any action, follows. I wonder if anyone south of the Alps (or in N. America) will listen to Cardinal Schönborn.
NPR translation of Benedict: “Unfortunately, [in the past] the dominant tendency was to see a contradiction [between faith and Enlightenment values] and to see one as excluding the other . Today we can see this is false. We have to find a synthesis and be able to dialogue.”
And: “I think the mission of Europe in this situation is to find a path to this dialogue, to integrate faith, rationality, and modernity in a single anthropological vision of the concrete human person and render that vision for the future of humanity”
This, it seems to m, is clearly a U-turn away from Pius IX’s simple-minded condemnation of modernism. For Benedict the old faith v. reason dichotomy is dead. Yay, Benedict!
Most spiritual writers and psychologists agree that the most common way to God is: Brokenness. In AA they teach that one does not learn until one hits bottom. Mark Karr kept praying and found that she suddenly stopped drinking. A person loses a spouse, is unemployment, has an illness. All these thing lead to change.
Rome and especially the pope is “broken” now. Let’s pray that good will come out of it.
“The Pope is thinking bigger, ISTM, when he alludes to “purification” of the Church as a whole as the debt that must be paid for forgiveness of the sins resulting from the sex abuse scandal.”
Bill Collier –
I don’t see justice (retribution) as being due because the sinners received absolution. That makes it seem as if we can buy forgiveness. I think the justice which is due is the retribution due to the injured parties, the children.
Perhaps I’m taking a very simplistic look at the whole situation, but I see some hope here.
How long have we waited for the Pope to look at this sexual abuse situation from its source,
and here he’s finally done it.
Having studied Benedict’s background—I know that it is hard for him to state what he’s stated. It was hard for him to admit that “there’s something rotten, not in Denmark—but in the Vatican, in the Magisterium, in the leadership in various dioceses.
I believe Bill Mazzella’s last comment speaks touchingly about being ‘broken.’ Yes, one has to hit bottom before one can admit that change is needed, before one can state that there exists evilness in the system.
I’m not one who is going to become overly optimistic about the change the Pope might initiate. But I do believe that the Holy Spirit is working here (and over-time, too). And I believe in the old saying that a thousand mile journey begins with one step first.
Let us hope that many more positive steps will be taken by the Pope.
While he is in repenting frame of mind how about some repentance for the micromanagement of the anglophone liturgy and followed by the reversal of the idiocies of “vox obscura” as it should be called. There is that ICEL translation waiting in the wings, is there not?
I know that it is hard for him to state what he’s stated. It was hard for him to admit that “there’s something rotten, not in Denmark—but in the Vatican, in the Magisterium, in the leadership in various dioceses.
I’m sorry, Little Bear, but the Pope did not say that – at least I didn’t see it in the New York Times quotes. The quotes I have seen are fully consistent with his letter to the Irish, in particular with his strong words addressed to members of the clergy who committed abuse. Today he said: “sin exists in the church”, which could perfectly mean “some priests committed abuse”, not “there’s something rotten in the Vatican and the Magisterium.”
Meanwhile, with all this talk of justice, let us remember that according to the CDF procedures, priests who have committed sexual abuse must only be reported to the police in the countries in which it is mandated by civil law: Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.
Ha, Ha Joseph G ;-)
Two of our three local priests just last week went to a meeting (they are probably back by now) on introducing the new english translation of mass.
Our latino priest (he is from Columbia actually) mentioned that the new english translation more closely tracks the existing spanish translation, and assured everyone the new translation is an improvement.
No doubt your Columbian friend is an admirer of Carinal Castrillon de Hoyos.
Ken, thank you for reminding us about the upcoming liturgical translation.
I say “thank you” because we must not overlook the “connect” between the rampant sexual abuse of children (along with papal indifference and episcopal coverups) in the Church of Rome, on the one hand, and the cultural artifacts that both reflected and sustained a clerical culture that elevated the ordained and subordinated the laity, on the other hand.
This pope, so infatuated with “traditional” stuff in the church, wants us to accept responsibility for this horrid situation (and to the extent we kowtowed to the ordained, we do share responsibility), but he shows no willingness to examine, much less challenge, a clerical culture that allowed abuse of children to flourish for decades, nay, centuries (although we’ll never likely see much documentation for the latter).
In the end, it’ll all be “samo-samo” and Catholic pewsitters will continue to toss their shekels into the weekly collection plate, and the “JPII” priests will continue to remind us of their ontological superiority, and the bishops will continue to steer us away from any memory of this ecclesial crisis, and the pope (certainly this one) will continue to ponfificate from on high — yes, even on an airplane!
Thanks for your reminder.
Yes, words, words, words, but better words; mind you at a glacial pace and still in terms of generalities, and ambiguous language. That’s the problem: you don’t reject wisdom even if it is late, but my Lord, wake up! Without the pressure, I fear there would be no wisdom.
Imagine going to confession and saying, there is sin in the Church, and then silence. Well? For what exactly are you penitent?
I get impatient when John Allen and others wax almost rhapsodic over some small measure of clarity in a papal statement. World-shattering news: Benedict acknowledges the enemy is within. I am heartened, of course, but want to scream, where have you been? Is the learning curve really that dense a thicket? What a sad commentary on the clerical system, then.
Stronger words, but what we really need is much stronger action.
Why is Law not in seclusion, removed from all offices; why are McCormack, George, and Mahony still in power, anticipating honorifics and plaudits from an equally blind, passive laity on their retirements? And in the name of God, why are Sodano and Castrillon-Hoyos not consigned to obscurity instead of headlining at major ceremonies, or strutting around in cappa magna’s before impressionable crowds?
Why is Sean Brady still in power in Ireland, and Diarmuid Martin not in his place? These indicators are far more powerful witness than all the repeated horror and words that come across as cheap grace to survivors and their supporters.
But maybe now bishops will at least forego whining lectures about forgiveness, now that Benedict says it is no substitute for justice. Something many have been saying all along.
And, Claire, let’s remember sexual abuse by religious brothers is not counted by the bishops in their annual audits – they’re not clergy after all. Neither is abuse of the mentally handicapped if their abuse did not begin before their 18th birthdays, nor abuse by seminarians not later ordained. My head hurts.
I wonder what “justice” means? Relative to each country’s customs, as in “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed”, or something more absolute?
Everyone knows what “justice” means. Even babies. See, e.g., “The Moral Life of Babies” in Sunday’s NYT Magazine.
From that:
“Not long ago, a team of researchers watched a 1-year-old boy take justice into his own hands. The boy had just seen a puppet show in which one puppet played with a ball while interacting with two other puppets. The center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the right, who would pass it back. And the center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the left . . . who would run away with it. Then the two puppets on the ends were brought down from the stage and set before the toddler. Each was placed next to a pile of treats. At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head.”
(Like Don Quixote taking his sword to bad puppets.)
Those who abused should be punished. Simple.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?ref=magazine
(Forgot to include the link.)
Just wanted to add that there have been a number of theories of justice down through the years.
In matters of crime, simply putting vengenance or retribution or rehabilitation have at one time or nother been at the fore.
In our society at least, there is a balance between community protection (which may include isolating an offendfer) and making victims (both individual and community) whole.
Needless to say, these theories are often mediated through lots of human problems and we tend to see the problems (due to, for example, insuffiecient resources, or imbalance in the representation afforded a person accused,) as problems of theory.
My view is to have justice in the Church, there needs to be real protection of the community (not putting the institution first) but also making all the victims whole, not just those who can legally civilly sue.
Joseph Bottum calls for Cardinal Sodano’s resigniation in First Things. This is a pretty remarkable piece. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/the-cost-of-father-maciel
Hard/impossible to believe those defenders of Maciel did not know the truth about him.
Article in NYT this morning about how Mexican families are split over Maciel’s legacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/world/americas/13maciel.html?scp=1&sq=maciel&st=cse
The First Things article resurrects complaints about the “petty gossip” unfortunate wording. But Cardinal Sodano was simply echoing Pope Benedict’s words from the previous Sunday (Palm Sunday), and Fr. Komonchak has argued that “idle chatter” was a more accurate translation anyway. Why doesn’t Joseph Bottum complain about the Holy Father’s choice of words as well as Cardinal Sodano’s, or, if he knows and agrees with Fr Komonchak’s translation, then why doesn’t he drop that particular complaint?
If, per impossible, Sodano falls, does that mean he becomes the fall guy?
OFF TOPIC
An Austrian bishop about to retire (or be retired) has said publicly that celibacy should be optional, and possibly there should be women priests.
Poor Pope. ( :-( <– Pope
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
ALeqM5j4qotYyFZUtTqrUY4771tlnp_QCQD9FLA6DO0