Amanda et Reformanda
There have been several references in threads below about the address by Archbishop Martin of Dublin. It is receiving acclaim from across the spectrum of Catholic opinion, and is worth a separate post.
Each will find in it something particularly cogent; but as a whole, it is powerful indeed.
Here is the conclusion:
The Catholic Church in Ireland, as I said, will have to find its place in a very different, much more secularised culture, at times even in a hostile culture. It will have to find that place by being authentic and faithful to the person and the message of Jesus Christ. The agenda for change in the Church must be one that comes from its message and not from pressure from outside and from people who do not have the true good of the Church at heart. We all have reasons to be discouraged and to be angry. There is a sense, however, in which true reform of the Church will spring only from those who love the Church, with a love like that of Jesus which is prepared also to suffer for the Church and to give oneself for the Church.
Thank God there are many who love their Church: lay persons, religious and clergy. We love the Church because the Church is our home, the place where we encounter the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ and where we gather in love to break bread in his memory.
Good point. In 1976 the bishops initiated the Call to Action which resulted in that group being formed. When the going got tough the bishops withdrew. The bishops negatively initiated Voice of the Faithful and demonized it from the beginning. Other groups followed.
Whatever the details all these groups formed out of a love for the church. It was easier and neater to disassociate from them to get into the messy waters to build up the church.
Can this time be different?
Whether abused or not, some people leave their “home” because they see it as too dysfunctional a place to remain. They may have lost all hope of ever returning to the fold, or they may hope that by leaving, they might encourage others to take the same route with the hope that by doing so, their former “home” might yet have a chance of reforming itself.
“Can this time be different?”
Given the current pope and hierarchy, I’m not optimistic.
The Commonweal blog has had an ad for Thomas Cahill’s new book mentioning his older “How the Irish saved Civilzation”. With A/B Martin leading and the HS maybe Cahill’s grandchild will write “How the Irish saved the Church”
What does it mean to love an institution or a collective? Is loving the church different from loving one’s country? is either different form loving a person?
Are we talking about agape? Eros? Caritas? What? I’ve never been sure what “love” means in this context. I suspect the term is used analogously, but I’m not sure. I have to do an essay on love and law this summer, so I’m rolling all this around in my head.
If only Archbishop Martin was my leader, how joyfully I would follow him! He says he’s discouraged: how can we help him?
I suspect you are right. Loving “holy mother church” comes down to loving Christ’s gift to us and thus to loving Christ for his gift.
I think the archbishop is a bit misguided. “The agenda for change in the Church must be one that comes from its message and not from pressure from outside and from people who do not have the true good of the Church at heart” does not respect the history of the Church, which has always adjusted its message to what its critics have claimed. This is the meaning of apologetic history. To say otherwise is to deny what the Church can learn from its critics and is nothing more than triumphalism — that somehow the Church will survive in spite of its critics. The true reform of the Church always springs from the reaction of those who “love” the Church to the critics of the Church when they take seriously their criticism. Pressure from the outside should not be dismissed.
Hello All,
Thanks to Fr. Imbelli for pointing us to Bishop Martin’s address.
I think there’s ample evidence that a great many Catholics love parts of their church, but I have seldom met a Catholic who loves all of her church and I rather doubt that many Catholics really love all of the church. I’m an example that illustrates my own claim. I love the priests and the lay Catholics I know personally, but I don’t want any more exposure to Catholics like Mother Angelica and Raymond Arroyo of ETWN or Mary Eberstadt and George Weigel of First Things. And I especially don’t want any further exposure to Christopher West. And I pray regularly for forgiveness for my lack of charity and for blessings for our friends at ETWN and First Things – I’ll even pray for Christopher West.
I have to admit I’m particularly troubled by the Catholics who are public figures who insist with the greatest vehemence how much they love the Roman Catholic Church, because they spend so much of their energy hating their fellow Catholics who are more liberal than are they. (I don’t mean to suggest that this is a conservative trait — I’m only speaking about my personal experience and for all I know there are more liberal Catholics who are public figures who bear similar hatred towards their more conservative fellow Catholics.)
Since I returned to the Roman Catholic Church three years ago some of my fellow Catholics have expressed disappointment that I still won’t even touch a scapular and I’m still neither a Theology of the Body nor a Marian apparition enthusiast. I love receiving the Body of Christ in my hands, and from women Eucharistic ministers. I love hearing the Scripture readings at mass read by women lectors and seeing women serve at the altar. I used to play guitar in church and I still like the use of guitars in liturgies. I like churches designed in the round. I could go on, but I’ve made the point: In so many ways, I am not a very “good” Catholic.
Some participants here have stopped practicing the Catholic faith and I can’t say I blame them. Much of the time I no longer like being Catholic. As I have complained above and in previous threads, I get discouraged that Catholics with whom I disagree so much have so much seeming influence. (I realize that people like Mr. Weigel would probably be none too happy to learn that another liberal like me – and one who teaches philosophy, no less – has reverted.) But in my better moments I think maybe one reason I should practice the Roman Catholic faith is because this church has so many members with whom I disagree and in some cases intensely dislike. Jesus calls us to love our enemies, and I’ve realized that one will never lack for enemies to love in the Catholic Church. The trick I suppose is learning how to love our enemies.
Much of the time I no longer like being Catholic.
That is sad.
I don’t understand Archbishop Martin very well, but his speech seems a quite polemical one — directed against several of his fellow bishops and many priests of his archdiocese.
The media are glorifying the archbishop just now; I hope those who join in the glorification will stand by him when the same media turn against him, as they did so viciously against Bishop Eamonn Casey and Bishop Brendan Comiskey, once their darlings.
It seems to me that the Archbishop’s speech, delivered to the arch-conservative Knights of Columbanus, raises more questions than it answers, and the answers cannot come from any one bishop or even from all the bishops together (supposing them still capable of speaking with a united voice).
The Irish Church is very, very tired. Proposals for reform that might have led to something 50 years ago now fall flat.
One point the Archbishop made is that the Irish Church is scripturally undernourished — a look at the model sermons in The Furrow over the last 60 years gives ample evidence of that. But have the bishops cherished their scriptural scholars? In Maynooth I understand that the bishops decided that theology would not be offered as a subject for state degrees, thus cutting off a great number of students who could have studied Scripture.
It is a touching idea to distribute the Gospel of Luke to the entire nation. But is it not a bit simplistic? Could the money have been invested in another way? The Protestant churches have been blitzing the world with Bibles for half a millennium, and it is not clear that the results have been proportionate to the effort.
The Archbishop’s speech is regarded as controversial in Ireland, especially his suggestion that the norms and regulations for child safety “are not being followed with the rigor required”: http://examiner.ie/ireland/church-board-rejects-archbishop-concerns-119577.html
Here is the audio version: http://bocktherobber.com/2010/05/archbishop-diarmuid-martin-disheartened-and-discouraged
He talks about those “who want reform on their own terms” — who are they? He warns that we must build “a Church of Jesus Christ and not something of our own invention” though it will be “a very different Catholic Church”. Those who say “We are the Church” may really be saying “I am the Church” — remembering how the bishops shunned the forces of the laity in Ireland for so long, this does not sound very adventurous.
Poor Archbishop Connell never gave a speech as telling as this during his long tenure. Before his and previously before Kevin McNamara’s appointment, there was expectation of a modern, enlightened bishop. I wrote to the Irish Times pointing out that the Vatican’s primary concern would be doctrinal orthodoxy etc., something pointed out also in The Murphy Report. (see “Choosing an Archbishop”, Irish Times Letters, 22 Sept., 1987).
“Parishes must radically reorientate themselves to become educational communities” — alas, bishops have been saying and writing such things here and there for a while; priests have been tossing the bishops’ communications in wastepaper baskets. Bishops are not the biblical Elohim who says, “Let there be light” and there is light. For such a transformation of the parish into an educative community one would first need a transformation of the church into a more democratic community practicing open discussion. Is that what Archbishop Martin envisages? I don’t know.
He is a man who has spent much of his career in the Vatican. Much of what he says about Church, secularism, Catholic identity etc. is just the sort of thing Irish bishops have been saying for a long time.
Peter, for what it’s worth, a conservative Catholic philosopher once remarked to me “You think that “mean” is a substantive ethical category.” You know what? I guess I do –and I think there’s an argument to defend it (mean as both unkind and small-minded). So I try to avoid reading blogers I myself think are “mean.” (Of course, everyone has their own list.)
I still don’t know what it means to “love the Church” in this context. I am afraid it is a claim that will be used as a cudgel to beat down those whose criticism is more radical. (E.G. If you raise the celibacy issue, then you don’t “love” the church.”
What I like about his speech:
1. He admits to being discouraged
2. He insists that we have to know the truth of what happened, and I believe him
3. He fully recognizes that the sexual abuse by clergy in Ireland is a catastrophe, and that it was managed “spectacularly wrong”.
4. He is not afraid to criticize his fellow clergy.
5. His respect for the truth also comes out in his discussion of Catholic schools (“The level of parents’ interest in Catholic education will only be objectively measurable when they have real choice”) with a determination to not be deluded.
That’s for attitude.
Then, in terms of actions:
1. Appeal on vigilance regarding child protection measures that, concretely, “should be on the agenda of every meeting of every Parish Pastoral Council”
2. More Scripture-based education, with, concretely, “the distribution this year of the Gospel of Saint Luke throughout the Archdiocese.”
3. He hopes that “those concerned about child safeguarding in Ireland today to draw-up an up-to-date map of the phenomenon as its exists today and verify what should be the most opportune strategy to that changed and changing landscape.” – explicitly advocates for updated version of SAVI report; that would be another concrete action.
4. He wants to fight clericalism, and for that, plans to “ensure that for the future in Dublin our seminarians, our prospective deacons and our trainee lay pastoral workers in the Archdiocese of Dublin will share some sections of their studies together, in order to create a better culture of collaborative ministry. ”
Etc.
He faces the truth fearlessly, he speaks plainly and unambiguously (hence it is polemical), and he takes concrete initiatives to start addressing identified problems. I am sure that if I was there I would object to some of his assessments or to the adequacy of some of his initiatives, but his approach to leadership is absolutely remarkable and inspires hope. It’s the opposite of just words.
Peter:
I have experienced similar intellectual, cultural and yes even at times even racial prejudices. However, for me, being Catholic means not only to embrace the truth that is disclosed from a range of places but also to actively discern and look for the grain of truth that can be gleaned from interaction with all manner of people.
I agree with you on West but not entirely. I had an acquaintance who is very pro Christopher West and gave me the cd’s to listen to a couple years ago. I listened as I was working out at home. I disagreed with some of what was expressed but not all. I think predicating sexuality on bodies and pleasures (as Foucault famously forwarded) is an important direction today. While the theology of the body, does not go entirely in that direction, to the extent that a theology of the body moves us, as a community, in the direction of bodies and pleasure, then I applaud it. Jansenism has had a strong impact on Irish and French cultural perspectives which has worked its way into the fabric of US Catholicism and Canadian as well. (e.g. in the 80’s when I was in the seminary I heard a priest say that people are still confessing masturbation). I know a “secular” therapist too who told me that a high proportion of her female clients were unable to experience sexual pleasure and/or saw it as bad or somehow very problematic and this is not due to religious formation. It is just part of the experience of a lot of modern women (according to my friend). As far as sexuality is concerned, North America is all over the map and many if not most of the population live in a state of cognitive dissonance. We experience massive amounts of pornography coupled with basically puritanical belief systems and there seem to be very few examples of successful integration.
At any rate, critical engagement with perspectives that we disagree with can be a service to the broader Church not to mention our own spiritual and psychological disposition. I have a Russian Orthodox friend who literally flies into a rage at even the mention of Thomas Aquinas. Yet Aquinas is famously have reported to have said “We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.”
So go for a nice tea, coffee, drink or lunch with George Weigel. You may have more in common than you think. And he might even pick up the tab at the organic café of your choice!!!! (I can suggest at least two in my city that I eat at regularly). The important thing is to do it! Afterall the Master did far worse. To eat with “sinners” did not mean to eat with people who were sinning but were on the road to reform. It meant to eat with people who had no intention whatsoever of changing!!!
It is interesting, the notice being paid to this particular speech. I imagine that folks are finding the ring of truth in it, perhaps as opposed to the cautious and carefully couched phrases that sometimes emanate from chanceries in the wake of scandal. The truth spoken at the right time can be a powerful catalyst. May it be so in this case.
Simply put, the love of the Church wil be shown by those working for the truth and justice the Archbishop talks about.
For that is the situation in Ireland, and lots of other places, where that’s needed (see the latest Belgian revelation of multiple complaints.)
Lots of comentary over at America on the issue, and I think Fr. jim Martin is right that much of the problem lies at the curial doorstep but runs down through the whole Church.Finally, I note the call for a change in the clericalistic structure- which, as I recall, Fr. Martin notes can lead to a lsut for power and, here, certainly undermines the love we’re talking about
“Within the Church and outside of it discussion focuses around challenges in the area of sexual morality where the Church’s teaching is either not understood or is simply rejected as out of tune with contemporary culture.”
Bishop Martin seems not to consider the possibility that many people –both inside and outside the Church– who understand the Church’s teaching in the area of sexual morality quite well find aspects of it inadequate to the standard he himself proposes: that “Christian moral rules and norms belong within a broader vision of the teaching of Jesus Christ.”
Cathleen,
I think that it makes sense to say that one has good reason to be devoted to the Church understood as the historical community or Tradition through which we believe that Christ’s saving work remains present to us.
This devotion has cognitive, volitional, and affective dimensions.
In an analogous sense, I remain devoted to the family into which I was born. My parents, my aunts and uncles, my cousins, and their friends.
This devotion gives rise to a loyalty that is certainly willing to see the flaws in family members. For example, I come from a lower class white Southern family. Recognition that racial prejudice is sinful came slowly and probably incompletely to some of my parents’ generation. Nonetheless, there was and remains love and the memory of so many good things that I received from my family.
With the Church, there is of course a different configuration of the cognitive, volitional, and affective ties, but those ties, fostered by some priests, some nuns, and some lay people figure largely in any sense I have of my own identity. For that, I’m hugely grateful and hope that my children and grandchildren have or come to have a comparable love.
Much as i find clericalism to be rampant and entrenched, it is bearable precisely because there is so much greater good in the Church.
A furrher note on clericalism: I’ve seem several refernces to the sex abuse crisis and clericalism noting Archbishop Rigali telling Bishop weakland that what was required (if I may simply paraphrase) loylaty and obedience.
In the current issues discussed here, I think it’s clear that loyalty and obedience are not the way to truth and justice.
So I guess I think clericalism should not be borne for the greater good of the Church.
Professor Dauenhauer, racial prejudice may still be present, but I think we have as a society made great strides in the last 40 years to reduce it. Laws and regulations. The courts. Education and information. Hopefully, people’s attitudes have changed and will continue to change for the better.
On the other hand, while we witness a pope condemning institutional abuse of children, we do not see him showing any willingness, at all, to examine the institutional artifacts, beliefs, and underlying assumptions that brought the church to the embarrassing position in which it finds itself today.
With all due respect, I cannot support a “rampant and entrenched” clericalism for the supposed “much greater good [of] the Church” at the expense of our children.
We have watched a great many individuals in the hierarchy struggling to find an appropriate response to the painful situation in which they find themselves. There have been denial, defensiveness, accusations of persecution by the media and by enemies without and within. There have been apologies, calls to repentance and conversion of heart (though often it isn’t exactly clear to whom those calls are addressed). There have been orders to follow helpful protocols that will keep children safe, (and here, to his credit Martin admits that just having good rules in place does not mean they will be rigorously followed. Ask the faithful in Chicago about that one.)
Now, in Rome as well as Dublin, there is a call for evangelization, a new way of addressing former Christians, potential converts, the lapsed, the never taught very well. It is an idea that is understandably appealing. Return to the original message, trust in the spirit, be of good hope. Good luck to them.
But programs like this need to embody the deep conversion they hope to engender. And will they? Will they be carefully thought- out and painfully honest, and involve sufficient listening, learning, and transparency on the part of the providers? (A nightmare version of such an evangelization operation might look something like the US Bishops’ coverproduced ampaign to offer the faithful ” remote and proximate catechesis? on the new liturgical texts they have mandated.)
Bernard, thanks. That’s extremely helpful.
I was trying to think what else is bothering me about the Apb’s approach, and it’s this: I think he (or at least we in the US) need to distinguish between the response of Catholics, and the response of the rest of the country. Ecclesia amanda est –the church MUST be loved–by whom? (Passive periphrastic–which Reggie Foster says is the strongest form of mandate in Latin.)
If a Mormon leader said, in response (for example) to polygamous abuses of underage girls by some Mormons (the plot of Big Love), that the fundamentalist Mormon church must be loved by those who are reforming it, I’d beg to differ. As a society, we all have an interest in the well-being of children. I don’t need to love Mormonism in order to make sure they put in place procedures to protect children. The same thing with the Catholic Church. Non-Catholics don’t need to love the Church in order to worry about the situation. What’s at stake here is not only a matter of religious behavior. It’s also a matter of common morality.
Apologies for my typing above. In the last sentence ” “coverproduced” should be “overproduced,” and there should be quotation marks. not a question mark after “catechesis.”
I think that everyone on this blog loves the church defined as the people of God. I think everyone in his own way makes peace with the hierarchical church. I think bishop Martin’s talk was an outstanding expression of honesty. The Pope in Portugal spoke well also if we don’t try to pick each sentence apart. The only question I have is, after all this blogging and speeches, what substantial changes do we think are going to take place in the hierarchical structure? The clergy, as a closed society, is going to continue to tell the people what they want the people to know, and is going to keep for clergy only what they don’t want the people to know. The clergy will announce changes to the laity after they’ve made the decision, and may take a suggestion on how to implement as long as it’s not to radical. They’ve created this monstrous material struture, some of good and some of not so good, but in their eyes it has to be maintained.
I believe the Holy Spirit will make the “people of God (church) evolve into what he wants, but it’s going to be slow process which may even look like it’s standing still.
Bob Nunz and Joseph J., it’s from the historical community we call the church and its members that we learn what’s wrong with clericalism. We learn from it that the Church and all of its members need salvation and so it’s nonsensical to pretend that there’s some segment of the Church that has already “arrived.”
I’ve been fortunate to have learned this from a number of good priests, among others, and a cousin of mine who was a truly saintly bishop.
For what it’s worth, I think that Andrew Savarese is most likely to be right. i’ll almost certainly not live to see much change in the problem of clericalism. But, at the end of the day, that is not something that ought to deflect me from my gratitude for being a member of the Church.
Don’t you think that the clergy and bishops have all heard the intense dissatifaction about the coverup from their close friends/family/ parishioners? Of course the vast numbers of pew Catholics are still coming to Mass and out of politeness don’t mention the disfunctional Church problems. not so with the priests and bishops close family/associates. This message is and will continue to be a game changer. Three weeks ago we heard 4 different priests talk in one week about the crisis, from the pulpit. . The priests were From liberal to conservative. This prompted my wife to say that they all must have received an email from the chancery to speak up about the problem. I said I believed ‘they’ are not that organized and the priests would not even be willing to do as told. There is an underground river of change coming.. get out of the way.
Interesting, Ed. I hope you are right. We have had a few oblique comments from the local regular clergy, a clear but modest indication from one good pastoral associate that he understands the situation, and a passionate and somewhat strained defense of the Vatican from a visiting Jesuit. And yes, as ever, all received with equal politeness and discretion by the parishioners. The river, around here, seems to be well underground as yet.
Is Archbishop Martin still working with a from-the-top-down idea of pastoral care? Distributing bibles — scolding adult Catholics for their failure to understand church teaching on sex — and much else seems redolent of this failed pastoral model. His priests say he has been authoritarian — the very thing that got his archdiocese into such a mess originally. Bishop Willie Walsh — the nearest thing to a Vatican II style bishop in Ireland — used the word “largely” several times — “I largely agree” — which suggests to my ear that he has misgivings about Abp Martin’s style. The media have been trying to smear the very blameless Bp Martin Drennan, and Abp Martin, who tends to go uncritically with lines of attack viewed as pro-victim, has seemed to be part of his injustice.
Susan Gannon mentions the pastoral initiative of the US bishops in connection with the new translations. That is indeed a scenario from hell. See http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/05/more-voices-against-the-impending-liturgical-abuse-scandal.html#tp
“Jansenism has had a strong impact on Irish and French cultural perspectives which has worked its way into the fabric of US Catholicism and Canadian as well. (e.g. in the 80’s when I was in the seminary I heard a priest say that people are still confessing masturbation).”
Actually, the Vatican made a statement about the sinfulness and unjustifiability of masturbation only a few years ago, and the priest’s remark would still be valid, except that few people go to confession any more. I think it was Herbert McCabe who said that masturbation was an immature act and confessing it compounded the immaturity.
” I know a “secular” therapist too who told me that a high proportion of her female clients were unable to experience sexual pleasure and/or saw it as bad or somehow very problematic and this is not due to religious formation. It is just part of the experience of a lot of modern women (according to my friend).”
There are also strictly asexual people who are such by nature; they just do not enjoy sex or feel strong sexual attraction.
Kinsey, though a bad man, did a lot of good in freeing people from fear; but possibly his over-physical attitude to sex had a chilling effect as well — our society has made sex such an unattractive proposition compared to more romantic and idealistic ages.
“As far as sexuality is concerned, North America is all over the map and many if not most of the population live in a state of cognitive dissonance. We experience massive amounts of pornography coupled with basically puritanical belief systems and there seem to be very few examples of successful integration.”
This seems to be a very accurate observation. The NARTH guy with the rentboy is perhaps a symbol of the average American.
I am not optimistic about recent comments by Ratzinger, Martin, Schoenborn — they are trying to be open to modernity without sacrificing the tiniest scrap of Vatican orthodoxy. Ratzinger has not reversed course on the silencing of theologians — it is still going on.
Father O’Leary: His priests say [Abp. Martin] has been authoritarian. I can’t know from just reading a couple of homilies and speeches by him, but it is quite possible. The possibility had crossed my mind before… I hope you’re wrong, and that he would use but not abuse his authority. In any case, right now his speeches about the sexual abuse crisis have the ring of truth, and, at least for me, confronting the truth is of paramount importance.
A noted Irish church-watcher with a doctorate in theology mentioned Abp Martin’s “bizarre” speech to me; not sure what aspect in particular he is referring to.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/john-cooney-knights-illuminated-by-clerics-thunderbolt-2176097.html
“Without throwing a public wobbly Archbishop Martin, however, indirectly identified as being among the “strong forces” of reaction Pope Benedict XVI, and the all-powerful Vatican Curia; and on the home-front, Cardinal Sean Brady and ‘the Brady Bunch’ in the Irish hierarchy, some of whom do not apply “with the rigour required” regulations and norms of diocesan child protection.”
An Irish Times letter this morning:
“I think Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was correct to co-operate fully with the Murphy report, but that he has been misguided in his subsequent reliance on the media to push for church reform. I regard the media as enemies, not friends, of the church. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that Dr Martin is letting faithful Catholics down every time he is portrayed in the media as a hero who alone is concerned for justice and reform.”
See also theologian James Mackey’s piece:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0512/1224270207377.html
“The archbishop’s answer is, as usual, brave and good; yet it does not go far enough. For the picture of a judgmental and severely punitive God cannot be traced simply and only to some rather recent Irish devotional practice. It goes back much further and to a more central feature of church belief and practice; back to the third century AD and to a theology of Mass and of Calvary then developing, in which God’s love for sinners took the form of a demand for a cultic sacrifice offered by a priest and taking the form of the most humiliating and cruel torture and death of the man, Jesus – a human sacrifice therefore – in order to satisfy God’s justice for all our sins.”
“This is best seen in the last judgment story from Matthew’s Gospel, in which poor unshriven sinners are condemned to eternal torture by fire, a fate far worse than even the cruellest death; a story that tempts church persons to believe that punitive measures should be applied in this life, if only to lessen those that could be expected after death. Punishment again is the primary instrument of love for those that would imitate the God of eternal hellfire who – true to form – had Jesus put to death to satisfy divine justice.”
Nice to see my friend Andy blogging again and I think he’s right that chane will probably come slowly given the way things are structured.
I also think, as he does, that all here love the Churxch.
But I also think that at the heart of the problem (and continuing on, as this is a media problem) is institutional protection being more important than service and justice to the community.
And no matter what one’s personal emotive affections are for that institution, placing institutional protection first doesn’t constitute “love.”
Ed Gleason, It’s very interesting that you’ve heard this mentioned from the pulpit. I have never heard this mentioned from pulpit, since about a week after the major scandel broke in Philadelphia. That has to be a couple of years ago. I think the church here will play the time game— If you don’t mention it, it will eventually go away like it never happened. Most priests will never bring it up, and most parishoners will never talk about it with the clergy, and certainly not in any kind of public forum. Life will just go on. Right now the push is to have more devotions and less emphasis on the scriptures.
It amazes me that Oscar Wilde is proposed as a hero over against Archbishop Ryan — those pushing this are not ignorant of Wilde’s career with boys as young as fourteen and his companion’s hunting of 12 year olds — behavior more outrageous than that what Archbishop Ryan is accused of not having done enough to prevent. They drool sentimentally over Wilde, saying they are sure he’d never force a boy to do what he didn’t want to, etc., etc. This is a clear double standard based on kneejerk anitclericalism, and tells us a lot about how deep Irish thinking on these problems is. Here is an example from today’s Irish Times:
Madam, – I was deeply disappointed to hear of the decision of the councillors representing Dublin South East to recommend to the Dublin City Council that Archbishop Ryan Park be renamed Merrion Square Park rather than Oscar Wilde Gardens (Home News, May 11th).
There was an extensive consultation process with 567 submissions (Home News, May 7th) received by the City Council, with 219 in favour of renaming the park Oscar Wilde Gardens and only 45 in favour of calling it Merrion Square.
The park itself is the site of the only public memorial to Oscar Wilde and there is no public amenity in the city named after him. This represents an opportunity to change this. I have heard it said that since the park is commonly referred to as Merrion Square, so why not make the name official? The problem is that names matter, and symbolism matters. After all, this is why the name of the park is being changed in the first place. The councillors, in overturning the clear response of the consultation process, are making a statement: That 110 years after his death Dublin should still be ashamed of one of its most gifted sons. – Yours, etc,
ROSS HIGGINS,
Ranelagh, Dublin 6.
Andrew S. maybe in Philly they are waiting for the ‘elephant’ to walk down the aisle.
[without a collection basket on his trunk]. Whispersintheloggia Rocco Palmo is Philly based… doesn’t it resonate there?
Hello Cathy (and All),
Thanks for your response to my earlier post.
“I still don’t know what it means to “love the Church” in this context. I am afraid it is a claim that will be used as a cudgel to beat down those whose criticism is more radical. (E.G. If you raise the celibacy issue, then you don’t “love” the church.””
What you describe reflects very well my personal experience, although I was not as clear as I should have been the other day. (I think it also expresses my spouse’s experience, and she and I are polar opposites on some issues including priestly celibacy.) I’ll give another example: I’ve had to take rather a good deal of hard treatment from some because I have admitted I find the logic flawed in the arguments of Humanae Vitae and John Paul II’s writings on birth control. I’ve even been told I’m under Satan’s influence on account of this admission. But the Church does not teach that the arguments in these writings are sound. The Church teaches that married couples may practice natural family planning but must abstain from contraception, and in my marriage I have practiced the former and I abstain from the latter.
I think both your example about the discipline of priestly celibacy and the example I’ve brought in about the writings of Paul VI and John Paul II illustrate a more general claim I’ll make here: I think most of the animosity I referred to earlier concerns matters that are simply not matters of Roman Catholic doctrine or moral teaching. To stick with your example, people of good will certainly differ sharply over the priestly celibacy discipline, but this is a discipline and not a doctrine. I could understand why one would think that someone who denies a doctrine or moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church does not love this church (although I do not think that necessarily follows myself). But I can’t understand why it follows that expressing a view on a controversial discipline is proof that one does not love the church.
Hello George (and All),
Thanks for such a warm response to my earlier grouchy post. (This time finals week has taken its toll on me and I’ve been rather lacking in good will.)
I appreciate your example of your Russian Orthodox friend who flies into a rage at even the mention of Aquinas (whose moral theory I regularly teach). A few times I have flown into a rage at even the mention of certain reported Marian apparitions (for various reasons, and which are not part of the deposit of the faith). Maybe the problem I and your Russian Orthodox friend have is we are too close to the subject we are thinking about? I frequently marvel at how much more at ease I am with students and professional colleagues who are Protestants, Jews and atheists than I am with some Roman Catholics.
In any event in my own case I think I should take myself less seriously and take your advice more to heart.
Mr. Savarese, thank you for your comments posted yesterday @ 7:42 pm.
I suspect they portray much of the Catholic reaction (or lack of same?) throughout the United States. Perhaps the laity are much like store customers: They continue to shop at the same place out of habit/whatever, or, fed up with the service they’ve been getting, they just leave out of frustration and disgust — and say nothing to store management!
Since I left the church 3+ years ago, I’ve not had much contact with my former neighbors in the pews so I have little feedback on which to judge the situation in my area. Our archdiocesan newspaper is no source of feedback from the flock, as THE RECORD has had a de facto policy over 20 or more years to refrain from publishing any readers’ letters whatsoever!
“I think the church here will play the time game…”
Certainly seems to be true in the Louisville archdiocese, as well.
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2010
B16 to Bishops: “Form a Mature Laity”
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
Once again these guys need to open their eyes, ears and hearts and admit that THEY could use a lot of formation themselves from the vast cadre of mature laity that already exists in this church.
Unless and until they accept that fact that the days of “Father Knows Best (all the time)” are over and that a lot more listening rather than teaching will be best for them, we will continue to have a church in which the clergy continues to assume that they are the way, the truth and the light, and an ever-increasing number of the laity will shake this church’s dust from their sandals, utter a very loud “basta” and simply walk away.
Breda O’Brien calls for reform — http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0515/1224270459443.html
The problem is everyone has a different idea of what Reform means. The last time clerical sex became embarrassing the result was the Council of Trent. When Benedict says “form a mature laity” he perhaps shows that he is still thinking of reform from above, by episcopal fiat, rather than a reform project born out of consultation of the faithful — or empowerment of them.
“Reform from above” — indeed, if that means: “from the risen Christ,” as in yesterday’s homily in Portugal:
“My brothers and sisters, you need to become witnesses with me to the resurrection of Jesus. In effect, if you do not become his witnesses in your daily lives, who will do so in your place? Christians are, in the Church and with the Church, missionaries of Christ sent into the world. This is the indispensable mission of every ecclesial community: to receive from God and to offer to the world the Risen Christ, so that every situation of weakness and of death may be transformed, through the Holy Spirit, into an opportunity for growth and life. To this end, in every Eucharistic celebration, we will listen more attentively to the word of Christ and devoutly taste the bread of his presence. This will make us witnesses, and, even more, bearers of the Risen Jesus in the world, bringing him to the various sectors of society and to all those who live and work there, spreading that “life in abundance” (cf. Jn 10:10) which he has won for us by his cross and resurrection, and which satisfies the most authentic yearnings of the human heart.”
“The Commonweal blog has had an ad for Thomas Cahill’s new book mentioning his older “How the Irish saved Civilzation’. With A/B Martin leading and the HS maybe Cahill’s grandchild will write “How the Irish saved the Church.”
Not the issue here, but, as someone familiar with the period of which Cahill writes and who found the book entirely entertaining and engaging, I must say that one hopes Cahill’s grandchild will not stretch the taffy as far as Cahill has.
Fr. Imbelli –
Thanks for the text. It reminds us yet again that when it comes to the very most basic teaching of the Church the Pope is a great teacher. But I have to agree with Jimmy Mac that he still doesn’t get it — it’s the hierarchy that needs the reforming. Oh sure we laity also need to change individually, but there is no institutional lay culture that needs reform for the simple reason that there is no lay single lay culture.. But there is a church-wide hierarchical culture. and it does need reform desperately. Unfortunately that culture is such that it inhibits self-criticism. It’s a really vicious circle when even the gentle and brilliant Joseph Ratzinger misses what to the laity is a most obvious point..
Jean , I agree, but ‘ the taffy pulling’ genre is part of of the Irish DNA as we all have witnessed on this Commonweal blog.!! :-) and all ought to agree that we need ‘a big stretch’ to get the Church out of this meltdown.
Ed, that’s the smoothest transition back to the topic at hand I’ve read in a long time, and I admire it.
I’m only half Irish, so I like to think I could stretch the taffy only half as far as Cahill. But the other half is Welsh (speaking of taffy), and it’s hard to know how far the truth stretches with them because they can keep such straight faces.
Believe me, no one in the Irish Catholic Church just now is stretching the taffy in the grandiose direction of declaring that salvation will come from Hibernia. While Benedict is calling for the Spirit to be poured out anew on the Church, one of Ireland’s poetic theologians is seeing Benedict as the Spirit’s chosen instrument to whittle an arrogant Church down to size and turn it into a fossil.
Even before sexual scandals (beginning with the media frenzy about Bishop Eamonn Casey’s
paternity in 1992) the Irish Church was a dispirited organization; the glow of Vatican II, never properly enacted, had long gone; mass attendance was sinking; the younger generation, from the 1970s on, were perceived as radically alienated, with no buffer generation between them and their pious parents. Peadar Kirby had a book asking if Irish Catholicism was dying back in the mid 1970s.
I recommend a brilliant book by Richard Sipe: “The Serpent and the Dove: Celibacy in Literature and Life” (Praeger, 2007). He has two chapters on Andrew Greeley that are — well, read them yourselves! The second edition of his 1990 book, now titled “Celibacy in Crisis” still clunks along with a wooden, old-fashioned Freudian machinery, but he has added new anecdotes putting priestly misbehavior in a more understandable light; they would probably not be to the taste of Commonweal, which Andrew Greeley, I learn from Sipe, called “that mom-and-pop journal”!
The taffy pulled in my family is of the Northern Irish variety, and were my grandfather’s Presbyterian sisters alive, they would be making plenty of anti-Catholic hay over this. Interestingly, one Irish-American publication reported that no less than the Rev. Ian Paisley has shown restraint in NOT using the sex abuse scandal as an excuse for Catholic bashing:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/col/NOdowd/Ian-Paisley-an-inspiration-in-Irish-Catholic-church-sex-scandals-80405772.html
Will miracles never cease?
Also an interesting glimpse into the heat ABC Rowan Williams has taken in trying to keep anti-Catholic rhetoric down, even as some Anglicans continue to fume about perceived “sheep stealing” by the Vatican:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/04/pope-defiant-child-sex-abuse
Peter, in case you’re still reading this thread, I happened to read the following in the preface of a book by Anatole France, that made me think of your post:
“Avec l’affaire Dreyfus, Anatole France s’est definitivement range sous la banniere de ceux qui refusent le fanatisme, le racisme, l’antisemitisme et l’obscurantisme religieux – car le romancier a toujours detecte, derriere les attitudes intolerantes et reactionnaires, le jeu insidieux des religieux.”
(With the Dreyfus scandal, Anatole France joined definitively the ranks of those who refuse fanaticism, racism, anti-semitism and religious obscurantism – indeed, the writer has always detected, behind intolerant and reactionary attitudes, the devious ploys of the religious-minded.)
You’re in good company against obscurantism.
Peter – appreciate your well thought out comments. Excellent – they made me think. A couple of interesting announcements per the Irish press in response to Archbishop Martin’s words:
First, Brady – this speaks volumes if you read between the lines: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/sean-brady-asks-pope-to-name-next-head-of-irish-church-14810323.html
Second: good analysis of the key points of Martin’s – http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/archbishop-martins-too-good-a-man-to-be-a-catholic-2181984.html
Despite a local parish priest defensively attacking Martin’s claim of “forces that resist” – the context of this speech is noteworthy – given before a core group of traditionally conservative Irish catholics and yet Martin’s points as summarized by this writer:
” I’ve looked for signs of the authentic Roman Catholic voice in this wonderful address, and found none. As a prelate, the voice is one of humility and pain. As a priest, the wish is for the Eucharist to have real meaning for those who presume to receive it rather than a catch-all to ensure the membership numbers stack up, however meaninglessly. As a teacher, the earnest wish is to open the gates of scriptural knowledge rather than keeping them firmly closed in favour of authoritarian interpretation and spiritual immaturity.
It’s revolutionary stuff, and that’s the tragedy: it should be the authentic Catholic voice, but it’s a voice that Rome has always been determined, and continues to be determined, it seems, will not be heard officially.”
What resonated was that this writer seems to say the opposite of “taffy pulling” and compliments Martin for that.
I mentioned here, and also in the Irish Times, that many priests now avoid children like the plague, and that it is very dangerous for a priest to touch a child in any way — even a blessing at communion should be administered with minimal contact. I was told in one email that I had a warped attitude to children and should see a psychiatrist, and in the Irish Times that my concerns were groundless. But now there is a story that amply bears them out: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/accused-catholic-priests-left-legal-limbo
Yes, many priests have misbehaved with minors, but yes too, we are in the middle of a full-scale witch-hunt!
I feel somewhat remorseful for buying Sipe’s trashing of Greeley. Reading the latter’s Confessions of a Parish Priest (1986) I meet a warmer, more open, more human, even humbler man than the tight-lipped, icy Sipe, who speculates on the private life of others while revealing nothing whatever of his own.