The NYT, the CDF & church law–a canonist responds.
Careful readers of Laurie Goodstein and David Halbfinger’s “Church Office Failed to Act on Abuse Scandal” (discussed here) will recall seeing Nicholas P. Cafardi quoted in the piece. Nick is a canon lawyer and a professor of civil law at Duquesne. He was also one of the first members of the U.S. bishops’ National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People. (Read his recent Commonweal article on the scandal in Ireland here.) I asked him what he made of the Times piece and the canonical issues it raises. Here’s his response:
It is rare when issues of canon law make the front page of the New York Times and even more rare when the secular media gets their canonical issues right. But the Times story of July 2, 2010, “Church Office Failed to Act on Abuse Scandal,” did just that. As the Times reported, it truly was a failure in the church’s canon-law system that exacerbated, if it did not help to cause, the clergy child sex-abuse crisis in the United States.
When the crisis first broke in the mid-1980s, U.S. canon lawyers (me among them) thought that the new Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, limited the canonical prosecutions of priests who had sexually abused minors to crimes that were reported within five years of their occurrence. The new canon 1362 said that the statute of limitations on such crimes was five years after their commission.
The problem with that statute, of course, is that it takes children much longer than five years to come to terms with an instance of abuse and begin to tell people about it. The literature suggests that the average time for a child to figure out exactly what was done to them, how wrong it was, that it was not their fault, and that they have nothing to fear from telling people about it, is about twenty years. So a five-year statute on child sexual-abuse crimes is unrealistic to begin with.
The U.S. bishops knew that they had a problem with that short statute, and in the late ’80s they began to beg the Vatican for a longer one. Those discussions unfolded over several years. Only in 1994 did the Vatican agree to a new statute of limitations for the United States: ten years after the victim turned eighteen, thus enabling the prosecution of many more crimes.
But lurking in the unreferenced and uncatalogued canonical database (yes, canon law is much more difficult to research than civil law because it lacks many of the organizational databases that civil lawyers have at their disposal) was a document that could have easily solved the statute of limitations problem. It was called “Crimen Sollicitationis” or “The Crime of Solicitation,” and, while it dealt primarily with the canonical crime of priests soliciting sex in the confessional, it also dealt with the “worst crime,” a euphemism for, among other things, the sexual abuse of a child by a cleric.
That document, which gave jurisdiction over such crimes to the Holy Office, now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), was first published in 1922 and again in 1962–but it was published only in the loosest sense. It never appeared in the Acts of the Apostolic See or in L’Osservatore Romano, or any other place where a canon lawyer would go looking for the law. The fact that the Holy Office had jurisdiction over those crimes was very important, because crimes in the Holy Office’s jurisdiction are unprescribable, that is, they have no statute of limitations. Yet that jurisdiction was also unknown!
When the document finally came to light, many canon lawyers thought it was irrelevant because the 1983 Code had so re-ordered that area of the law that “Crimen Sollicitationis” had been impliedly overruled in favor of the new five-year statute of canon 1362. After all, if “Crimen Sollicitationis” was still in effect, what was the purpose of all that dithering between the U.S. bishops and the Vatican from 1988 to 1994 to get a longer statute of limitations for priests who had sexually abused children? If “Crimen” still applied, all the Vatican had to do was pull the document out of a drawer and tell the U.S. bishops to use it, since crimes reserved to the Holy Office, now CDF, have no statute of limitation.
Imagine U.S. canonists’ surprise when, in a May 2001 letter accompanying Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio “On Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Sacraments,” Cardinal Ratzinger, then prefect of CDF, referred to “Crimen Sollicitationis” as being “hucusque vigens”–Latin for “in effect until now”–that is, in effect until May 2001, and therefore not overruled by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Yet, if “Crimen” was in effect until 2001, why did no one at the Vatican say so before and spare the U.S. bishops all that grief asking for a longer statute?
It is unfair to lay this contretemps at the current pope’s door. He is a theologian, not a canon lawyer, and, like other laymen (nonprofessionals) in the field of canon law, he has to rely on what the experts tell him. But whoever inserted the phrase “hucusque vigens” in Ratzinger’s 2001 letter and whoever his Vatican canonist colleagues are, they have a lot of explaining to do.
–Nicholas P. Cafardi
Thanks for this Grant — and to Nicholas Cafardi.
The upshot of all of this, it seems to me, is to reinforce what most people knew, which is that the Vatican was not eager to respond quickly or effectively to the scandal of the sexual abuse of children by clergy, and they did so only under duress. That is a scandal in itself that the church will have to deal with for a long time to come.
One particular question I have: If I recall, the new norms raised the SOL from 5 years (under 1983 Code) to 10 years after 18. But that again seems to place a limit that was in fact never there before. So in the face of these scandals the Vatican has in effect instituted a retroactive SOL. Why do that, and why not lift it, go back to status quo ante?
Thanks to Nicholas Cafardi for the clear explanation.
Thanks to the great New York Times for its excellent reporting.
Reading canon law(s) is indeed a mind bender. Thanks to Carolyn Disco, I have downloaded and read the 1922 canon. It begins (in the English version I read) by saying this text should “be diligentaly stored in the secret archives of the Curia [MOBS: ?diocesan Curia presumably, but does it mean the Vatican curia?] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.” So, who had access? And who ever read it?
And then, a question: until the very end of the document the only persons mentioned as being solicited are married women, girls [age not specified], and domestics [38]. Was this the primary concern? The most obvious issue?
At the last, the documents gets to homosexual acts [71] and “youths [not defined] of either sex or with brute animals,” which are called “the worst crimes.”
What is the historical context for this document? Anyone know its origins? and the occasion for its being written and kept secret!
There’s a typo in number 16, the date 1941 should probably read 1914.
And yes, thank you, Grant and Nicholas Cafardi.
A question: Nicolas Cafardi writes,
Does “until now” mean that it was in effect until May 2001, but not after that date? Or did it continue to be in effect after that date? Is it still in effect today?
The bishops had to “beg the Vatican” for permission to do what bishops [should] do?
And the “worst crime” does not incur automatic excommunication?
Ms. Steinfels, here’s another helpful commentary on the Vatican documents and the confidentiality issue from Fr. Thomas Doyle:
http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/2008/2008-10-03-Commentary%20on%201922%20and%201962%20documents.pdf
Napoleon is quoted as saying “Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.”
However, there is more than simple incompetence in the Vatican’s failed response to the challenge of ending sexual abuse by clergy. There is a hard-hearted disregard for pain and suffering of the victims. The lack of whole-hearted repentance (cf. Sodano) means that this grave sin of omission cannot even begin to be atoned for.
In reading the Times story and this helpful post I have noticed no one has referenced the interview that Msgr. Scicluna gave to Vatican Radio and published March 13, 2010. Msgr. Scicluna is the Promoter of Justice at the CDF, and he stated that on November 7, 2002 Pope John Paul II granted Scicluna’s office the power to revoke the ten year statute of limitations, case by case, and that revocation is normally granted.
He said “Practice has shown that the limit of ten years is not enough in this kind of case,…”
Lee — Mark Twain said a similar thing: “Never ascribe to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.”
It’s amazing when you think about it that the Vatican considers the 1922 law to be a law at all. It was required to be totally secret, but the classic definition of a law (according to Thomas — what does canon law say, if anything?) includes the necessity that it be *promulgated*. In other words, if a law has not been promulgated it is by definiition not a law at all.
What this shows to me is that even the Vatican’s concept of what a law is, is thoroughly corrupt.
The link Susan Gannon provided,
http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/2008/2008-10-03-Commentary%20on%201922%20and%201962%20documents.pdf
is very interesting. Especially, imho, Section 32.
A question: What does “solicitation” mean? I know what it means in ordinary English, but does it have a special meaning in canon law? I.e., must a priest ASK for sex in the confessional to meet the criteria? Some victims, whose accounts of abuse I’ve read, were not asked before the priest assaulted them.
And what about a priest who interrogated penitents about sexual sins, demanding details for his own prurient interest? Was that “solicitation”? (I heard in high school, over fifty years ago, that priests were not supposed to inquire too deeply into the sexual sins girls confessed, but we were not told whom to report it to if a priest did that.)
This discussion reminds me of something I came across within the last year. In the course of a previous discussion, David Gibson sent my wife a link to a news story about statements a few years ago by retired Archbishop Weakland in the course of questioning by Jeffrey Anderson. The news story, which acknowledged that it was based on portions of the hearing transcript provided by Anderson, was not surprisingly highly unfavorable to Weakland.
But thanks to “Bishops Accountability,” the entire transcript of the hearing was available and I read it all, even though it took the better part of a working day. Whatever one might ultimately make of it — and the transcript revealed how very partial and selective the news story was — I learned a few things about the real world in which Weakland was operating, for example, about the half-assed civil courts and police procedures he encountered as well as his own admitted failures and those of church officialdom more widely.
Some of those failures had to do with canon law. In describing his own learning curve from his appointment as a bishop in 1976, Weakland observed that while virtually all the canon lawyers he knew. to say nothing of bishops, were thoroughly immersed in the details of canon law pertaining to marriage impediments, exceptions, and annulments, they had very little expertise in canon law pertaining to priests’ sexual abuse of minors.
This made sense to me because I’ve become highly conscious of our tendency to read back into the past the state of knowledge (at every level, laity as well as bishops) about sexual abuse that we have gained in the last 20-25 years. But maybe it’s not true. I would be interested in learning from canon lawyers, at least those who are old enough, how much they were taught or were aware of about canon law’s treatment of sexual predation by clergy before, say, 1985.
Where is the commonweal App-ologetics when you need it? I’m sure it would work like this or some such:
“But whoever inserted the phrase ‘hucusque vigens’ in Ratzingers 2001 letter and whoever his Vatican canonists are, they have alot of explaining to do.”
Buzzzz
F.Y.I. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01137a.htm AND
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/CrimenEnglish.pdf
#13- “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accuser or those denouncing (the priest) and the witnesses, TO NONE OF THESE, HOWEVER, IS THERE SUBJECTION TO A CENSURE…”
Perhaps the mysterious 1922 text was hidden in the tomb of St. Peter. The Belgians might loan their tools and provide expertise in an investigation.
#13- “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accuser or those denouncing (the priest) and the witnesses, TO NONE OF THESE, HOWEVER, IS THERE SUBJECTION TO A CENSURE…”
Nancy,
Could you please explain what your point is here? I can’t figure it out.
I can’t figure what section #13 means; it sounds as if it is very loosely translated from Latin by someone with an imperfect (to put it charitably) command of English. (Nor do I understand the relevance of the New Advent article, which seems to deal with forms of address to Ecclesiastical Personages in the early xx century.)
“Perhaps the mysterious 1922 text was hidden in the tomb of St. Peter. The Belgians might loan their tools and provide expertise in an investigation.”
———
Benedict XV had just died a few months before Merry del Val issued Crimen Sollicitationis. His tomb was unfinished at the time. If he should be beatified, his tomb will be opened.
The cause for the canonization of Merry del Val is dear to the hearts of many conservative Catholics. His writings (and his tomb) will be examined if the cause progresses.
“‘Odd Fellows’ in the Politics of Religion: Modernism, National Socialism, and German Judaism”, by Gary Lease, has a search in’side feature. It contains a good deal of information about Cardinal Merry del Val.
http://www.amazon.com/Odd-Fellows-Politics-Religion-Modernism/dp/3110143232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278365092&sr=1-1#_
Check out the Wikipedia page on the document –
Crimen sollicitationis
I thought Peter raised a salient point about our learning curves toward sex abuse.
While canon law is part of the problem, it strikes me, it seems to many laity as the wrong frame and that crimes against children should have generated a revulsion that instead was brushed aside to protect clergu by sending them off to therapy.
The Doyle/Law confrontatoions in the 80′s post Jason Berry was obviously some kind of wake up call but how much wake up should have ben expected?
By the early 90s as I recall, just in New York there had been the highly publicized cases at Covenant House and also the”hole” of Fr. Pipala.
Then there was the whole mess in this neck of the woods with the Sevants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs.
At a bottom line, I still think it was the media, the Boston Globe in particular, that forced Church leaders to move outside the canonical perception.
Personally, I think we have had (as many bishops are JCDs) a sacralization of very human canon law.
Organizations need structure, but so much internal (what as my friend Andy says) “clandestineness” rules processes that deeply affect people but are hardly divinely guaranteed.
Hence from my point of view, the point is not to pillory bishops who acted in good faith, not just by the book, but to change governance -but also to pillory them if they fight that change.
Perhaps some of you, like me, were wondering about the question I raised in comment #4 above. I just got the answer, in an email from Nicholas Cafardi:
Nicholas,
I found a clear statement of the meaning of paragraph 13 of Crimens Sollicitationis (which Nancy Danielson refers to) in the document Susan Gannon links to in her message of July 5th, 2010 at 1:19 pm:
Nancy’s message seems to be in the form of a “gotcha,” but I confess I still don’t understand her point.
The text of Crimens Sollicitationis is available on the Vatican web site.
Thanks for the excellent post from N. Cafardi. If I may – copied from the earlier blog at 1:34PM July 4th:
“You ask – how can we connect US bishops to this when Rome seems to have put up obstacles every step of the way?
Yet, Rome speaks out of both sides of their mouths -
1922; 1962; 2002 – Rome now states that these secret protocols never stopped any bishop from reporting to civil authorities (even tho the civil laws across the world are so very different); yet, these protocols said that they could handle cases – but most bishops seemed lost in terms of handling cases -or, out of frustration, they filed cases in Rome which then took years to handle, if ever
- a few months ago Scicluna noted that the 1962 documents may not have been sent to more than 2,000 dioceses – and it does not appear to have been part and parcel of what bishops used or were educated on. Since 2002, Scicluna has had fewer than 12 folks to address hundreds/thousands of cases?
= yet, US bishops (see Weakland’s autobiography) felt that Rome was unresponsive
Now, we have a legal case that clearly argues that Rome is the “employer” – Rome argues that apostolic succession means that each bishop is independent. Yet, most “independent” bishops seemed incapable of taking reasonable actions without waiting for Rome’sa pproval – again, Rome wants it both ways. You are independent but you must follow these protocols.
1983 canon law – seems to have little regs to handle abuse even though this was becoming a key issue – you already had Canada, Australia, etc. Sorry, not everything started with Boston.
My guess is that there were many secret meetings about abuse – and yet folks such as Hoyos in 2002 sound no different than the inane historical comments of J. O’Leary on other blogs. As if past or even current cultures justify abuse. (reminds me of my talks with my kids – “if your friends jumped off a bridge onto the Interstate, would you follow?” Gee, if we find a culture that still allows abuse, we can understand why children were slow to be protected by the church)
Basically, this is a mess – you wind up seeing that Rome does not get it even now. Don’t buy the Allen justification that B16 started to internally change and challenge in the mid-1990’s – took him 20+ years and now 5 years into his papacy – has anything really changed?”
Guess I am surprised at many bloggers who have not read extensively in terms of the court cases in places such as Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles. Read the excellent legal/canon law presentation by Doyle/Peterson/Mouton in 1985/1986 that (I think) was given to roughly 1/3 of all US dioceses. I attended that presentation in Dallas in 1986 – it was ignored. I give little credence to many diocesan canon lawyers – they basically have a education that equals what we would consider “vocational” school education or they have been schooled in Rome (not exactly the center of open discussion, etc.) See recent Phoenix event – diocesan canon lawyer.
Sorry – I mentioned Scicluna above; mentioned Weakland (agree with Peter’s comments and his full deposition – he had the information available but waited on Rome; he made one wrong move after another and compromised his abilities by his own questionnable conduct). Trying to now point the finger and say that canon law was too intricate, confusing, etc. is just repeating another blaming attempt – it was the psychologists/psychiatrists (read some of the links by C. Disco – bishops ignored their recommendations in some cases).
Agree that we should not judge events or people by placing the learnings of 2010 on something that occurred in 1980 but, in reality, from 1985 on, any US bishop had the information to behave correctly – they choose not to and Rome only made this more difficult.
Sorry, I am not inclined to give a “pass” to B16. He had this information; per his own admission, he read court cases every Friday; he can blame internal politics; he can say he is not a canon lawyer, but the buck stops with him. He had done very little to correct this significant issue.
(BTW – another article the past two days about the fact that as part of the Rome/US bickering, bishops wait to laicize and let the guy go into society. Very few dioceses are able or willing to handle clerical abusers – the tendency is to cut them loose. Now, the church has sunk to the level of society…you would expect more)
With regard to Peter’s comments about how we might have a “tendency to read back into the past the state of knowledge (at every level, laity as well as bishops) about sexual abuse that we have gained in the last 20-25 years” — we might consider the following line of thought: Did sexual abuse of children and adolescents occur in non-Catholic schools and in other non-Catholic organizations before, say, 1970? The answer is obviously yes, of course — but then a few more questions arise: what, if anything, was done about such abuse in non-Catholic settings? Was it handled quietly and internally? Was it reported to the police? Were people tried and convicted in court? And also, was any of this reported in the press? If the answer to any of those questions is no, then why not?
My point here is that I wonder if, at least in some cases, or in some time periods, we have to be careful how we view the hierarchy’s actions (or lack of actions), and ask if their approach was the same or almost the same as that of the surrounding society. That doesn’t make it right, and yes the Church is supposed to be better, but it does at least help us understand things a bit more. A similar line of thought to go with this: why does it seem that in case after case, time and time again, the parents and families of victims ALWAYS went to the Church, and never to the police? Or, if they did go to the police, why did things not get into the press? Would we say such parents and families of victims part of a “cover up” too, though obviously not in the same sense as the bishops?
I’m as angry and frustrated as other people by the way the hierarchy is currently behaving (the prime example is that Cardinal Law is still in positions of power and in a post at St. Mary Major), but I wonder, when it comes to how things were dealt with, say, pre-1965, maybe even pre-1975, if it’s just not that simple?
What other areas of life are there where we might have similar “blind spots”? For example — suppose a school knew that multiple times a week, some students would assault other students on their way home — and yet did nothing to stop it? What if they knew students were arranging to meet each other to fight during the school day, but didn’t do much to discourage it? What if they knew that the parents, particularly the fathers, of many students would actually teach their children how to effectively assault others? What if at times, large groups of students would actually gather to witness such violence? And again, what if the school, the community, and everyone did nothing about it, and looked the other way? To many, I suspect this seems horrible and unimaginable — but does this not basically describe the culture of “fist fights” between boys growing up in ages past, say, the ’40s and ’50s (my Dad’s time)? In other words, look at the attitude we’ve often had towards violence among children, how we’ve looked at it as normal and part of life: yes, we might punish it, but not REALLY.
Another example: consider how differently (or at least perhaps until recently) we’ve viewed teasing and bullying among kids, vs. how we would view sexual harrassment among kids. Consider what committing an act of “physical” violence against another student would mean for, say, a 7th grader, vs. committing an act of sexual violence against another student would mean for that student. And yet when we put the two side by side, we might ask ourselves, “why on does one often involve nothing more than internal school discipline and phone calls between parents, whereas the other involves the court system?” And why does the way we see kids involved at a fight at a suburban school differ so much from the way we see the kids involved in a fight at an urban school? It’s difficult to get across what I mean by this, but my point is that what seems obvious to us isn’t always so obvious to different people in different time periods.
Peter S. raises a good point that I think should be kept in mind, without of course excusing the behavior of molesters or the bishops who often did nothing about them, or worse. There have always been those, the rare few, who saw child abuse for what it was, but until relatively recently they were indeed voices in the wilderness of the institutional church culture.
When the “statute of limitations on ignorance” about sexual abuse ran out for the bishops is a matter of debate, and of course has no firm answer. Some say 1985, after Jason Berry’s initial reporting and Father Doyle’s “j’accuse”. Others say 1992, when the US bishops said they really really had things cleaned up. The most generous extension would be until 2002 and the Boston Globe reports.
How one is to explain the ongoing recalcitrance of the likes of Sodano et al is beyond me. I do recall Archbishop Weakland saying, I believe in his memoir, that he himself could not understand very well in hindsight why there was not greater outrage or action. It was a very honest assessment (in an honest autobiography). It’s hard being immured in a culture, as other still are.
But as regards the expertise in canon law, it seems to me that such expertise comes in reaction to events — in other words, annullments spiked in recent decades, so more canon lawyers were expert in annullments. Perhaps abuse cases rarely reached a canonical phase, so few knew how to handle them. Or the law itself (because of the church legislator, the Pope) did not create an atmosphere conducive to legal action. (Like Jim Crow laws in the South, maybe?) In any case, it seems that the culture of not dealing with the rape of children by clerics, which has been going on for centuries, preceded and perhaps formed the canonical/legal framework and culture.
Also, child abuse, as horrifying as it is, is also a sin that can be dealt with in the same way any sin is — through confession and penance and atonement. Right? If it is repeated, well, the cycle of grace is repeated. Right? Anullments or similar types of legal procedures follow a process that is brought by adults and aims to achieve a particular end point.
I’m no expert in canon law, just arguing out loud. My point may be that canon law is a tool that can be used as those who wield it would like, and that child rape is a crime that doesn’t — or didn’t — fit in well with the canon law culture or system.
Let me rephrase in semi-intelligible words:
Is too much weight being put on canon law by both “sides” in this matter?
Those who want to find a conclusive smoking gun will put great weight on what a certain law could have done, and those who say their hands were tied can say that said law was an obscure, little-understood text that could not have changed much.
Or something like that.
If I am not mistaken the Peterson/Mouton/Doyle presentation (85-86) came to the conclusion that pedophile priests should go into therapeutic treatment centers, one of which Peterson ran (St. Luke’s?); the conclusion that bishops arrived at not long after.
What do public schools do? someone asks above. I believe the phrase, “pass the trash” had its origins in those institutions, and as far as I can tell that’s no different now than it was twenty years ago.
Without excusing anything, anybody, or any institution, I find the inability/refusal/denial that history and local context helps to explain a good deal of what was going on in the church, as elsewhere, two, three, and more decades ago. That doesn’t excuse anybody or anything, but a little more attention to history and context would help to explain part of what is the trope of “cover-up.”
By 1968 44 out of 50 U.S. states had enacted mandatory laws that required physicians to report cases of suspicious child abuse. Legal action began to become more prevalent in the 1970s with the enactment of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974 in conjunction with the creation of the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect. Since the creation of the Child Abuse and Treatment Act, reported child abuse cases have increased dramatically. Finally, the National Abuse Coalition was created in 1979 to create pressure in congress to create more sexual abuse laws. – Child Sexual Abuse
I was abused more than 30 years ago and my abuser was given a dishonerable discharge from the Air Force. The polive weren’t contacted, though.
sorry – meant ‘police’
I realize that the 1922 document is of merely academic interest, but I am still intrigued by the 3 paragraphs tacked on about The Worst Crime. They link same-sex relations (2 parr.) with sexual behavior with impuberes and animals. Impuberes is the only reference to minors in the entire document. Fr Doyle says that Canon 88 of the 1917 Code defines impuberes as children under seven. I have not been able to find this text by googling, but it seems highly unlikely to me that this could be the meaning ascribed to impuberes. Its normal sense is beardless or prepubescent children (boys under 14 and girls under 12), not children who have not reached the age of reason (boys and girls under 7).
Also laws lose validity if they are not received or if they are overruled by contrary custom; clearly these three paragraphs were never receive. As far as I know, clerical homosexual behavior was never dragged in under the rubric of solicitation and never prosecuted by the CDF, whereas abuse of the confessional was so prosecuted by them.
Can anyone clarify this?
Mollie closed comments on her post below. But I want to take the opportunity to thank Peter Steinfels for his comment posted there yesterday. Though the whole comment is challenging, this assertion, in particular, struck me: “it has been my experience that no amount of specific evidence will convince many understandably outraged critics of the bishops and supporters of victims of any distinctions in the nature or the degree of responsibility from bishop to bishop and from time period to time period.”
And on this thread Peggy Steinfels remarks: “history and local context helps to explain a good deal of what was going on in the church, as elsewhere, two, three, and more decades ago. That doesn’t excuse anybody or anything, but a little more attention to history and context would help explain part of what is the trope of “cover-up”.”
For me, these remarks are both forthright and nuanced — hence helpful in moving forward.
Here’s the question I think people are asking now. At what point does one say, “this is hopeless,” and walk away?
If you think in your lifetime, at least, the church is inevitably going to be mired in this scandal, pushing a view of authority that confirms Paul Blanshard’s worst fears, crypto-Donatist, and just plain nasty in its concrete exercises of power, why not walk away from the bile of the Catholic apologists, and go on to do something constructive in another setting, and make sure that political and legal power, is used to to protect people from being hurt by the church, on precisely the same terms as any other institution. No special favors, either. This question is on the line, too. I predict that the tax-exempt status of churches will come under increasing attack as the budget crisis gets bigger.
A nice, soft, pink lighting of “religion is good” isn’t the answer. Good is as good does.
And I think many people have these questions, at least in the dark at night. And I don’t think the people who don’t have them–who still point to the the pretty picture, and the pagentry, and rail against the Times’ unfairness, are going to be much help to the rest of us in coming up with answers, since they don’t even see the questions. Telling people that that the question are illegitimate, or that their perceptions are distorted, is just going to make angry.
So I guess my answer to Bob, and to Peter through Bob, is “you’re right.” They don’t want to hear. There’s a bigger problem for them. And if you can’t see it, you can’t help them.
The only way is through the darkness, not around it.
Cathy,
I didn’t know I had posed a question…though that didn’t deter your posting an “answer.”
However, I do have a question: if “the only way is through the darkness, not around it,” is the dominant attitude “rage every step of the way” (as DT seems to recommend)? Or is there time and space for adoration, thanksgiving, petition, surrender on the pilgrim journey? or does that smack of “soft, pink lighting?”
And since when is “making people angry?” verboten? — on blogs of all places!
Bob I didn’t say you posed a question: I posed the question I think many people are asking, trying to think through what’s helpful and not helpful to them in dealing with it. I should have said my “response,” rather than my “answer” in the bottom of my post.
You and others have commented on the anger that people have shown toward the church. I’m saying the approach you seem to be advocating isn’t going to mollify it. You are certainly free to make people angry on the blog all you want, of course.
The dominant attitude isn’t “rage”–the dominant attitude, as I see it, is a sense of betrayal–and a sense of being duped. “How could we be so stupid as to think that. . .. ”
Is there a place for adoration? Well, I think different people are at different points on the spectrum. Some people think the Church qua church is still just fine, but needs some renovation. In that case, yes. Some people see the Church’s capacity to mediate the divine as called into question by this–in that case “adoration as usual” isn’t going to help them. It all depends on how deep the crisis is seen as. AND That’s what people don’t have the same view of.
The pink puffy cloud or soft pink lighting is not specifically about Catholicism–or your comments. Some of my lawyer colleagues describe religion, in general, as a good, as a way of justifying special benefits in public policy. For example, religions get tax exempt status. More people are asking, why? You could simply exempt the charitable component.
Cathy:
Some people obviously are saying , “This is hopeless,.” and walking away. I wish they wouldn’t, and I certainly would hope that they wouldn’t do so because they are confusing the Church with the hierarchy.
I find your description of people likely to be disappointed that people are walking away to be condescending and unfair. Some serious theological clarifications have been attempted on this thread and on others, and they are far more than “a nice, soft, pink lighting of “‘religion is good,’” more than pointing to “the pretty picture, and the pageantry.” These descriptions of yours are not only unfair characterizations; they are in their own way smug dismissals as illegitimate of questions you are not asking, dismissals as distorted of perceptions you do not share. You are right: treating people you disagree with in such ways is likely to make them angry.
Joe, the analogy to the puffy pink cloud is meant to be allusive to the people who advocate generally for religion as “a good thing” legally, without specifying why, and how that general good thinginess is to be balanced against the concrete harm it does.
Yes there is a division==and doubtless anger on both sides: On the one hand, there are the people who are certain that the basic structure is intact, everything is in good working order, and this is simply one more bad patch like other bad patches in history. Beautiful quotations from the Pope’s latest encyclical, deep theological reflections, references to the spiritual riches of the Church are likely to help them–to remind them of the good. Pointing out flaws, or mistakes, or biases in the Times approach reinforces group identity and helps one believe the problem isn’t as bad as its made out to be, but seems worse because of the Church’s historic enemies. They see the ones in despair as overreacting, as not taking the long view, and as not sufficiently distinguishing between the church as the spotless bride of Christ and the sinful people who are redeemed in and through participation in it. They think the despairing ones are making the problem worse. They also suspect that the despair may be disingenuous–as a way of pushing another agenda. They are angered by the expressions of anger and despair, wondering why those expressing those feelings don’t realize it’s not helpful, and their just contributing to the weakening of the church, divinely instituted to carry the Gospel message.
On the other hand, those feeling the despair and anger are not helped at all by the things that help the first group. That’s what I was trying to evoke. They find it almost unbelievable that some believe piety can go on as usual in this situation, and untrue to the depth of the problem. The claims of the Church to be fundamentally what it was claimed to be in V2 are at stake –not just the sex abuse crisis in a narrow sense. The church is acting and behaving just like its most vocal critics said it would act. They too suspect that the other group has an ulterior motive, generally articulated as currying favor with the hierarchy or reigniting the culture wars.
I think both groups are honest in feeling the way they do. And I think the strategy that helps one group (group A) is going to push the other group (group B) further away and faster. In short, what helps one group is just going to pour salt in the wounds of the other. But that does not seem to matter to either group.
So I don’t think a common way of approaching this issue is going to be forthcoming.
The only way I can feel the effect of the Eucharist now (the rare times I take it) is to put aside the church, the Pope, the day’s text, everything but the sense of contact with Christ. The rest of it all is just too toxic.
But am I still a Catholic? (Not just a member of Group B?)
I am glad people are raising the question of historical context, of how these issues were dealt with by the wider culture. And I agree with Margaret that ‘a little more attention to history and context would help to explain part of what is the trope of “cover-up.”’ We don’t need to vilify people for not being ahead of their time. Lots of organizations have faced these problem.
I think the fly in that ointment is whether one believes something like the Maciel affair (and, a little less over the top, the Law affair) would have happened in another organization — and finally addressed so recently — and whether, if one thinks it wouldn’t, that suggests a culture in the hierarchy that has been very late to really take this seriously (except, perhaps, as something that threatens that culture).
Matt Goodwin: I am sorry that you feel this way. If I might be able to understand, while not agreeing with you, why you “put aside” the Pope, I do not understand why you should also “put aside” as “too toxic” the Scriptures of the day and ‘the church”? What do you call the assembly in which you hear the word of God and receive Christ’s Body and Blood? You are, presumably, not the only person in that church who has “the sense of contact with Christ.” It would be a shame for you to ignore the others brought together by Christ when you think about the Church.
There is always a problem of nuance in historical understanding on both sides — those who write COVER UP in upper case and those who write “cover up” in air-quotes. Both are hardly defensible positions.
I think the problem with charging critics of the hierarchy with an excessive case of “presentism” is that reflexive hierarchical apologists will then use that as a way (potentially self-serving) of explaining away both past sins but more importantly of justifying the ongoing pastoral and emotional stonewalling by those in power in Rome and elsewhere.
Battling for the legacy of the past can be a rationalization for those in the present to put up defenses so they too do not fall victim. But that leads us to pastoral examples like Sodano, Castrillon et al — those who want to “move forward.” Which is so much nicer, for some, than dealing with the past. But such selective blindness (relativism, as someone once called it) does not bode well for the future of the church, if the same mentality that ruled in 1980 and 1990 and 2000 and 2010 is allowed to be the future norm.
An honest reckoning, not just by partisans here or elsewhere, but by the principals, is I think what would help the church to move forward.
Agree that the historical context is important. I think those too young to remember, e.g., the 1950s, cannot imagine what parish life was like then, and how much attention everyone paid to everyone else. (I could still tell you who attended weekday masses, and where they sat in church, including the woman who led her shell-shocked son by the hand to their pew each morning.)
The bishops knew everything that was going on. They knew which kids were expelled from Catholic high schools, who had to get married, etc. (In Kansas City, the bishop directed the diocesan high schools not to accept the girls who withdrew from a private school he ordered to integrate. Etc.)
And in the generations before that, everyone also knew everything that was going on. Cardinal Merry del Val, e.g., cooperated in the excommunication of a woman in England who had the temerity to attend the funeral of a priest he disliked. And the New York Times commented on Merry del Val’s “powerful” automobile and the lavish vacations he and his cousin/best friend took.
To imagine there was a time when a priest would not notice another priest taking young boys up to his room in the rectory or for weekends at his lake cabin is to ignore history and human nature.
I am not about to walk away. The way I look at it is that the coverage of the sex abuse scandal, the Maciel affair, the SSPX nonsense, provided us with a valuable opportunity, a sort of “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment. Recall that in Andersen’s tale, the insecure but arrogant King and his ministers, all of whom knew in their hearts that they were unworthy of their trust, chose to wear the luxurious but “invisible” garments supplied by a pair of con-men as so fine only the truly worthy could see them. When the voice of an innocent child said “But Mama, the King is naked,” all the people standing around suddenly had permission to admit that they saw the same thing. And they started to laugh. Unfortunately the parade had to go on, through town. It must have been unconmfortable for the officials, but a liberating experience for the people who had been imposed upon so effectively for so long. The power structure would never look the same to them
Thanks to many good journalists including those at NYT the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, as well as NCR, Commonweal, the Tablet, America; tireless activists on behalf of the survivors of abuse, brave clerics who are against the old brand of “clericalism,” we are in a good moment in Church history. After such an epiphany, nothing can ever look the same, but that is a good thing, and its no time to run away from a big, dirty job. Somebody has to begin to put things right.
Before we fall for the notion that the bishops suffered from some historically excusable lack of knowledge, let’s not forget the mountains of evidence that set the Church apart from other institutions. Over decades, the hierarchy spent millions on confidentiality agreements with thousands of victims, which no other institution could or would do. Instead, even if the misconduct of a teacher or minister were kept quiet, the predator would almost always be fired. Moreover, victims did report misconduct, often risking their relationships with their families and their place in their communities, but Church officials such as Cardinals Law and Mahoney either ignored their pleas entirely, advised them to pray, or threatened them with counter accusations.
The scale of the abuse crisis in the Church is far beyond the problems in other institutions, not because the Church is so large, but because such an enormous percentage of priests have been accused of child molestation. In other somewhat similar professions such as school teachers, estimates of the percentage of abusers range around two tenths of one percent, but in the Catholic Church, over five percent of all priests who have served in the US have been accused of sexual abuse against minors. When we keep in mind that this is only one type of crime, that is, we have no idea what other crimes they were committing, we have to acknowledge that the culture of lawlessness in the Church places it in another universe.
Clearly, the Church did take sexual abuse seriously: it waged a strenuous, consistent, and enormously expensive campaign to keep what grew into a global crime wave out of public view. In this effort, it was aided by police and other civil authorities, fearful victims and their guilt-ridden families, and, above all, countless parishioners who either actively condemned those who came forward or who looked the other way.
Tragically, there seems to be no tipping point on the horizon: no matter how many crimes come to light, no matter how clear it is that the hierarchy colluded with countless criminals, no matter what indifference Church officials showed to victims, there will still be Catholics who will desperately cling to the institution, selfishly pretending that somehow the same people who actively facilitated so much evil can deliver them to eternal life.
Forget history excuses.. The ineptness keep slapping at the faces of group B again and again. e.g.
in the latest news cycle Cardinal Sodano, ‘protector’ of Maciel and cardinal Groer was upheld and his critic C. Schoerborn was censured. This is not history. its will happen again tomorrow/next week/month. As a member of group B I take my Eucharist and communio in an inner city church, just blocks from the chancery but these few blocks are light years away in time and presence. The poor and old there do not know the above names and could care less what they do or say.. My best plan would be to do what my spouse does, hunker down with them and ignore the sinking hierarchs
“When we keep in mind that this is only one type of crime, that is, we have no idea what other crimes they were committing, we have to acknowledge that the culture of lawlessness in the Church places it in another universe.”
———–
Agree. The horror of the sexual abuse of children is so great, that other stuff seems petty — parochial school teachers robbed of their final checks for a school year, businesses never paid for products and services, etc., etc., etc.
I urge everyone to read the article by Sr Helena O’Donoghue in this month’s FURROW: http://www.thefurrow.ie/current-issue
It is the best thing I have read on the abuse scandal and it points the way ahead to a sane, peaceful, Christian pursuit of our life as Roman Catholics.
Cathy:
Your “puffy pink cloud” is not only allusive to the people you describe; it is abusive of them.
I have never understood how anyone can be content with an analysis that divides the complex and variegated reality that is the Catholic Church into two groups. Many Catholics I know would resist being forced to choose between your alternatives, and I count myself among them. A bipolar division forces people to make a decision–you’re either with me or against me–and efforts to set out a third, or fourth, or fifth…, possible stance are mightily resisted, and those who attempt it must be scrunched into one or another of the two only possible alternatives, usually the one that one disagrees with.
Your analysis leaves no room for people who believe, with your B, that “the claims of the Church to be fundamentally what it was claimed to be in V2 are at stake,” but who don’t agree, with your A, that “the basic structure is intact, everything is in good working order, and this is simply one more bad patch like other bad patches in history,” who aren’t critical of the media’s reporting, who think that the Church may be undergoing its most severe crisis since the Protestant Reformation. There are people who note that Vatican II had two chapters on the Church as mystery and as People of God before it started talking about differentiations within the Church, and who therefore resist mightily the reduction of the Church to the hierarchy. There are people who precisely because of the sinfulness of the Church’s members do not believe that we will be able to speak of the Church as “the spotless bride of Christ” before the Kingdom comes. There are people whose deep commitment to God and to Christ within the Church continues strong, even though it now must often take the form of sorrow and anger at what some members of the Church, some leaders of the Church, have done or are doing. There are people who regret that some leaders of the Church are acting just as critics of the Church said that they would act. There are people who are trying to examine what people actually say, and to reply to it where thought necessary, without probing for ulterior motives and hidden agendas, and without assuming bad faith in those with whom they disagree.
Oversimplified analyses will only encourage and abet the growing alienation that you describe If you deplore that alienation, as I would like to think, then something has to be done to move beyond a “Which side are you on?” polarization.
The problem I have with some Group B Catholics, and why I feel they are often talking past me, is that their whole framework seems to be one of power: Who’s got it, how’d they get it, and how do I get me some more of that good stuff? Whenever I see the word “structure” in the argument, alarms go off. Perhaps if they’d come to the table in fear and trembling, kind of like Matthew in that Caravaggio painting, and it was clear they’d come bearing gifts rather than looking to take something that’s not theirs, I could better welcome what they had to say.
BTW, Mark Silk has what I think is the best analysis I’ve seen of the NYT piece on B16 et al:
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2010/07/nyts_non-hatchet_job_on_pope.html
Nicholas Cafardi gives a very lawyerly account of how it all went terribly wrong legally (canonically speaking) for the Vatican in its handling of the priests sex abuse scandal.
You get the impression that if only those fumbling career politicians in the Vatican had followed their own canon law, things could have been different.
I have a decidedly less sanguine view of the Vatican’s management approach and its use of canon law to insulate itself from taking the only morally defensible response to the rape and sodomy of children.
Despite what Cafardi claims, the debate among and between the Vatican curia and American bishops about the statute of limitations in canon law regarding the sexual abuse of children by priests was still going on in 2002.
I know this is so because [now Cardinal] William Levada told me so after his return from Rome from consultations at the Inquisition (now the CDF) where then Cardinal Ratzinger was still running the show.
The San Francisco Review Board, of which I was then the chair, specifically requested that Levada convey to the curia our great distress over the possibility that the statute of limitations that would govern our investigations be anything but the American legal standard.
Our fear was, I believe justifiably, the public would never understand and further undercut any credibility of review board investigations.
There was also pushback from the Inquisition about what would constitute majority age for males and females, the canonical or the American legal standard. The Review Board was equally adamant about using the accepted American standard of 18 years of age.
These were not insignificant points of contention. If the canonical standards were used (which Cafardi confirms were still being debated within Vatican circles), this would have meant effectively that most allegations of sexual abuse against priests were mute (as far as canon law were concerned), and never would warrant any further investigation by the church’s review boards across the US.
Levada reported to us on the SF Review Board that it was the opinion of the Inquisition that canon law should always supersede American law.
Ratzinger and his allies in the curia were maneuvering to render all of the investigations of the Review Boards worthless before they even got started. Little did we then know that the hierarchy never had any intention of ever conducting independent and unvarnished investigations of sexual abuse by priests.
One of the architects of the so-called “Dallas Charter,” the Rev. Gregory Ingels, [canon lawyer and former SF chancellor for Levada] himself eventually indicted by a Marin County grand jury for the rape and sodomy of adolescents, predicted to me personally that canonical charges against him would never stand because of the prescriptions in canon law regarding statute of limitations and the majority age of males and females.
My recollection of Levada’s report of his consultations at the Inquisition was that the curia was not too pleased with the “zero tolerance” approach either adopted by American bishops at their Dallas meetings.
Face it, with Ratzinger running the show at the Inquisition, and now as pope, there was never any intention to deal forthrightly with the abuse scandal on the part of the Vatican hierarchy.
The Vatican hierarchs were engaged in a calculated strategy of delay and dissemination in hopes that they could eventually survive the tidal wave of scandal that has swamped their leadership.
How’s that working out for them?
I’m glad that Cafardi thinks that “Vatican canonists” have “a lot of explaining to do.” But, isn’t that what “Ricky Ricardo” used to say on the old “I Love Lucy Show” after one of Lucy’s comic stunts exploded in her face.
The problem, of course, is that the rape and sodomy of children by priests and bishops never has, and never will be, comical.
I am grateful for this thoughtful discussion, but wanted to point out that there are historical instances in which rage and polarization are positive and appropriate developments. It is now impossible to participate in the Church without becoming part of the machinery that orchestrated the sex abuse epidemic. Every church is a crime scene, whether it stands in the inner city or in a wealthy suburb, and no Catholic parish can exist outside the system, just as no sacrament can be performed without the mediation of the hierarchy. That is, after all, what sparked the Reformation.
A note: I mentioned above that we have no idea what other crimes priests may be committing even if have limited information about clergy sexual abuse, but I did not mean that these unknown crimes must be petty offenses. In the US, more adult women file civil complaints against priests than do victims of child molestation, but this massive wrongdoing remains secret. In recent years, we have learned of violent assaults, attempted murders, and other terrible crimes committed by priests, but these revelations came in the midst of the release of files on child sexual abuse. Does anyone imagine that 5 or 10% of priests in an archdiocese could be engaged in crimes against children while the rest of the priests, or the molesters themselves, otherwise obeyed the law? Unfortunately, nobody is asking the question that civil authorities usually ask when they uncover a crime ring involved in one type of criminal activity, which is, what else were they doing? And this is one more reminder that whatever some Catholics may say about the Church being under seige, civil authorities in the US have yet to take any comprehensive measures against the Church despite the revelation of thousands of crimes. Molesters are still tried in secret tribunals, still returned to service without explanation, and still protected by the hierarchy even in the aftermath of huge settlements. In the face of this ongoing but avoidable injustice, it seems that rage and polarization are an appropriate response.
Strikes me there are two themes here:
1)-reaction in the Church and anger and rage as positive/negative – I think for the reason in number two here it”s positive;
2) I thought Jim Jenkins’ post was highly relevant to what Cafardi has to say.
I think it would be excellent if all the members, present and past (including Keating) of the National review Board gathered in symposium to discus the reactions of the hierarchy to crimes of sex abuise by clergy (not just against children but teens and adults as well.)
I think I saw a headline today that BXVI scores secular justice (talking about Belgium).
My view is that there is an overdependence on the putatively sacred canons and under appreciation of how secular justice (with its warts and all) works for the common, not institutuiona, good.
” The church is acting and behaving just like its most vocal critics said it would act. ”
Cathy –
Yep, the official Church is no doubt making the Dawkinses and Dennetts of this world dance in glee as they watch their theory of Roman corruption confirmed by this sorry spectacle.
And still the Pope and many bishops still don’t get it — they still don’t *see* that the reason for our greatest anger is not the behavior of mentally deficient priests, nor even the cover-ups, but the unwillingness of some higher-ups in the official Church (e.g., the Pope, Sodano, Law) to accept their individual responsibility for ignoring the facts of children suffering. Instead they’re STILL blaming the press and gossip, and STILL a bishop is allowed to not follow the rules laid down at Dallas without public condemnation from Rome and his fellow bishops. The scandal continues — children are still at risk. That is the salient point.
To repeat in hopes that those who call for prayer and patience might finally get it; It simply isn’t true that public expressions of anger by the laity have done no good. The facts of abuse and the public outrage at it are the things that moved the press to cover the incessant storie, and the press reports are what moved the hierarchy to start a reformation. But the reformation is stymied. An American bishop still refuses to abide by Dallas and there is no public condemnation of him by his fellow bishops or by Rome.. Law is still pastor at Santa Maria Maggiori and is STILL a member of the dicastery that recommends new bishops. And Dawkings and Dennett dance on.
Thank you, Jim Jenkins, a psychology PhD who resigned from the SF Review Board in disgust at Levada’s corrupt leadership. Levada of course now heads the CDF, reinforcing what qualifies one for promotion in the hierarchy. Jim’s language is anything but indirect; somehow independent direct contact with the clerical exercise of power often sharpens one’s perspective and mode of expression.
And Mark Silk’s comment linked by David Gibson is superb:
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2010/07/nyts_non-hatchet_job_on_pope.html
“The critics beat up the Times for pointing out that, under Ratzinger, the CDF was devoting itself to such matters as cracking down on liberation theologians, sorting out marriage annulments, and determining the legitimacy of apparitions of the the Virgin Mary. This, they say, is unwarranted editorializing. But surely it’s important to know what else the CDF had on its plate, and what Ratzinger’s priorities were. Isn’t this the kind of context the lack of which media criticism is always lamenting?
Would it have made a difference if the CDF had gotten its act together, as Goodstein and Halbfinger allege? The answer is yes…
Thanks in no small measure to the investigative efforts of the Times in recent months, a portrait is emerging of Pope Benedict as someone who (in contrast to others in the Vatican) grasped the seriousness of child sexual abuse and was prepared to bring the hammer down on abusers, up to and including the monstrous Martial Maciel Delgollado.
But from his days running the CDF to his papacy, he has not been willing to challenge the curial system and its determined commitment to circling the wagons. Indeed, when push comes to shove, and he perceives that it is threatened, his reaction is to jump into the arms of the likes of Cardinal Sodano, who epitomizes all that is wrong with that system.”
The way forward is not just more words, more non-apology apologies bracketed by a blame-game from the devil, to the Jews, to secularism etc. but forceful action like accepting the resignations offered months ago by two Irish bishops, instituting not guidelines but mandates for reporting to civil authorities, turning over documents to secular investigating authorities and the public, sending Sodano, Law and their like packing to the sidelines. There is no lack of alternatives to change the course of “all that is wrong with that system.”
Sad, that just about every move forward has to be painfully extracted from hierarchy at the point of a legal gun or media exposure, instead of promptly implemented in a spirit of cooperation and leadership.
Bob Nunz – as for some former members of the NRB – their stories will be told someday. Burke’s papers are donated to her alma mater. Others believed in being very, very, very diplomatic. I hope Jenkins writes his full story as well.
The problem I have with some Group A Catholics, and why I feel they are often talking past me, is that their whole framework seems to be that the current way the RCC is structured (there’s that word, Mark) is divinely inspired and can never change. The clergy has a God-given palce atop the hierarchical pyramid (yes, I remember my Baltimore catechism quite well) and everyone else is simply there to follow orders, fund what goes on, have lots of little Catholic babies and generally shut up and accept the status quo. The more slack-jawed blank-eyed pew potatoes that won’t question anything there are, the better.
Joe, as I said, the “puffy pink cloud language” refers to the people who say, “religion is good for society–we need to protect it and give it special rights and benefits qua religion.” And some go on to intimate that since Catholicism is a “good religion,” it should be treated especially well. This strikes me as an underlying tacit claim in some arguments in he conscience clause debates. In general, I think that approach dangerously sentimentalizes religion and doesn’t grapple with the harm it can do in specific forms. I don’t think female genital mutilation is more tolerable simply because it is religiously motivated in some cases. And I think part of the picture of this whole situation is the degree to which the Catholic Church got special treatment in the past simply because it’s the Catholic Church. IF it turns out that the Belgian police would have done the same thing to anyone else, I think the pope’s claim that the church was treated terribly is misguided. And God help them if they find something. And if it turns out that Catholic hospitals jeopardize their licenses because of the ruling on the Phoenix case, well so be it.
Now, I do think these blog thread shows that there are two rough ways of describing responses to the situation. NO schema or category is totally accurate. I’m trying to map the disagreements that are breaking out on dotCommonweal. The fact that you and I disagree–it seems we disagree on almost everything–I take for granted. But we come from different backgrounds, were raised in different eras, and went to different schools for very different types of training.
What As cannot seem to understand is how this can snowball into a broader crisis of faith for Bs. Okay, fine. But getting all cranky at the the B’s isn’t going to make matters any better. The B’s didn’t make the problem. And it’s clear that they can expect nothing but verbal abuse from the As if they voice their struggles to them–for the reasons I attempted to describe.
And just to make things easier from now on, since it’s apparent that I have to deal with you as if I’m dealing with hostile opposing counsel, I hereby stipulate that no generalization that I make now or at any point on any future blog post in any way applies to you personally.
What I’m interested in doing is trying to figure out a way forward for Group B–through the darkness, and out the other side.
Well, gee, Cathy, that’s mighty big of you!
If you can see in these blog threads only “two rough ways of describing responses to the situation,” I don’t know what to say other than to suggest a trip to an eye-doctor.
I get it, Joe. You don’t like the categories. So you don’t have to use them. Problem solved.
How about in order to help speed readers, everyone but an A or B after their name. [those with advanced degrees can use + or - .] (-; or )-;
Cathy –
I think we might have a semantic problem here,a very common, but confusing one. Definitions of social groups (e.g., Group A and Group B) tend to describe only the “extreme” members of the group, i.e., the members who have all of the characteristics in the definitions of the grouops. Thus Bill Clinton is a “liberal” and I answer to the term, but I don’t have all the “liberal” characteristics that he does. Language works like this all the time with respect to group membership. Such usage is inaccurate, but it is usually, though not always, good enough to convey a speaker’s meaning in a particular context.
So, Cathy, correct me if I”m wrong: when you talk about Group A and Group B I doubt that you intend a hard and fast classification. It seems that you mean the *extremes* of the groups. So I don’t think your terminology is polarizing, at least it need not be any more that “liberal” and “conservative” have to be.
I know that I often refer to “the Boomers” as self-absorbed, but I certainly don’t think that all of them are. It’s just the paradigms whom I intend.
“The B’s didn’t make the problem.”
Hold on there. I will grant you, Maciel was an A Catholic, probably an A+ on this scale, but Weakland was a B (if not a B- Catholic). I would consider Mahony a B Catholic as well. And all the psychological consultants who counselled against removal, punishment and penance? Isn’t it likely they were mostly Bs? Surely a B is responsible for On Eagles Wings. My guess is that Bs made the problem at least at much as As did–let’s hope they’re as much a part of the solution.
J Mac–Touche’, though of course I stopped reading after the word structure ;-)
“treating people you disagree with in such ways is likely to make them angry.” Father Komonchak, why don’t you just say that you’re angry? Just yesterday you wrote that you get annoyed with indirect statements where people imply things instead of saying them outright.
Matt Goodwin: for me the presence of the people around me, when they sing or otherwise express their participation, can be incredibly uplifting. The day’s texts, if I have spent the previous few days mulling over them and more particularly if the homily brings out new insights, can open my heart. These are such a big part of the Mass for me. Maybe you need to find yourself a different parish that will nourish you better?
Susan Gannon: I agree, in a way. It is better that the sexual abuse stories come to light, much better than when they were hidden and we believed that all was basically well.
Fr Imbelli: you are always quoting the words that point towards excusing the church hierarchy and our pope. You’d be more convincing if you sometimes also highlighted some comments that go the other way, Your expressions are mild but the overall pattern suggests denial.
“ask if their approach was the same or almost the same as that of the surrounding society. That doesn’t make it right, and yes the Church is supposed to be better, but it does at least help us understand things a bit more. ” Brendan, the church is behind the times, not the same as the surrounding society. A bishop who does not lead, who shows no wisdom in grave matters having to do with our humanity, is not fit to be a bishop, at least not if you still have respect for that title. I can understand that his behavior is human, but it makes him unfit for that function.
It was meant as a rough typology–that’s all, trying to begin understanding different ways of reacting to the latest wave of the crisis. I am trying to understand not only the crisis, but our various responses.
So it was obviously going to be something of a caricature. And I wasn’t trying to capture the entire Church–I was trying, roughly to characterize the tensions I’ve seen on the anguished dotcommonweal threads on the subject, and how and why certain moves or responses from some people pour salt in the wounds of others.
Claire: I distinguish between being annoyed and being angry. I will admit to being angry at those who presume priests, and even–cover your ears!–bishops, guilty until they prove their innocence, and I get annoyed when people resort to psychological explanations, such as “denial,” instead of addressing what is actually said by the people thus dismissed.
The air is charged with electricity today
i know that i should just give up, but like so many other similar discussions, this one skips across the essential reality: the Church has become a haven for sexual criminals, and the evolution and upkeep of this refuge requires constant cooperation on the part of parishioners, priests, and civil authorities. One way to see this drift into trvialities is to imagine that we were talking about slavery rather than child sexual abuse. As Thoreau pointed out in the mid 19th century, all were complicit who upheld any part of any government that either actively enforced or passively accepted the continuation of slavery, period. In the face of thousands of crimes that could have been prevented, I can only ask, what do Catholics hope to salvage from the moral wreckage? Some priests who only ignored the problem and thus deserve to retain magic power? A handful of bishops who ought to be commended for turning to Rome for guidance? It really isn’t that hard to call on one’s own conscience for obvious answers rather than pretending that the corruption and criminality would have been prevented if Ratzinger had access to better advisors or if we had a fuller understanding of canon law. The key to ending this still unfolding crime wave is for individual Catholics to refuse to accept any religious scheme that makes irrational obedience the price of salvation. If this sounds extreme, I wonder if those who still hope for reform from within can tell me if there might be some number of victims, some quota of criminal acts, some portion of suffering imposed by the Church that would be too much to tolerate.
Mark, it’s not liberal or conservative–per se. It’s how you frame the crisis. I am trying to explain dotcommonweal, and used As and B’s in that way. I’m sure First Things would have its own version of As and Bs. By being responsible for the crisis I mean the sex abuse crisis. Neither A’s nor B’s are that. And as much as you hate On Eagles’ Wings, neither is it.
To me, Susan E. Gallagher’s undoubtedly sincere rhetoric is that of Tea Party Catholicism or Tea Party ex-Catholicism. We are all sexual criminals and dupes who make irrational obedience the price of salvation. There is no chance of reform from within. If I disagree with this, am I assigned to Group A? Cathy Kaveny, if you disagree with this, I would be comforted, since I am pained to watch friends quarrel, to know why.
Actually, I didn’t say that all Catholics are sexual criminals, only that remaining Catholic in these times requires cooperation with corruption. Of course, figuring out who is an A or B Catholic is way more important than honestly addressing any question of conscience–which has here been reduced to an expression of tea party ideology.
Okay, it’s hopeless, as I should have assumed in the first place. I guess the heat wave we are having went to my head.
I see her as extreme Group B, really venting. How about this for an analogy–what about the people who wondered how far and how deep the Watergate coverup went with Nixon? Think of the Maciel situation like Watergate. In my experience, a key mark of Group B people tend to be frustrated with any hint of “business as usual.” They’re into prophetic indictment. And anger and depression are flip sides of one another, I believe.
My guess is people who are in Group B said, “well, she’s well over the top, but I understand how she feels. This whole situation can really drive you crazy.” People in Group A probably said, “That’s just crazy–her conspiracy theories are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”
May I ask how it is that the church’s self-understanding, as articulated at Vatican II, is at stake in the sexual abuse scandal?
My own point of view, for what it’s worth, is that the church on earth consists of sinners shepherded by other sinners. Whatever good the church represents and accomplishes (and I believe it is great good, the very greatest) certainly can’t depend on the native vitue of its adherents and rulers. That goodness has another, supernatural, source.
So I guess I approach the whole question with pretty low expectations of human behavior. Not that I’m not angry/disappointed/heartbroken/grief-stricken at the ever-widening dimensions of the scandal. But it hasn’t rocked my faith in a fundamental way.
When I read the above few posts, the writers seem to be saying that faith in the church requires a cynical view of its leadership. I also hear “sinfulness” being used a kind of excuse. Every human institution is administered by sinners, but few have produced such an appalling exhibition of confusion and neglect.
I am reluctant to join this discussion because I am sure that I would be placed on the extreme B category if not seen as a Tea Party Catholic.
May I add another thought – Fr. K….you repeatedly ask that we not generalize in terms of abusers or bishops who cover up. You also stated above: “I will admit to being angry at those who presume priests, and even–cover your ears!–bishops, guilty until they prove their innocence, and I get annoyed when people resort to psychological explanations, such as “denial,” instead of addressing what is actually said by the people thus dismissed.”
There has been quite a bit of documentation and actual quotes from those who have been involved in “some” cases, that no longer meet your requirement that this bishop should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to Rome and the curia, the documentation to date indicates a pattern that does not instill confidence in “some” leaders – okay, let’s presume that they are innnocent. On the other hand, let’s not swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme either. Questions, investigations, probing needs to be done – the pattern has proven that without it, “most” church leaders will move to their “default” position – protect the institution; protect priests; protect the clerical culture. As your own quote says – “….what these people actually said”……some of us have moved well beyond “just words” to action. If that seems like we are dismissing them, not sure I agree – nor would I say that we are just categorizing them. I would say that we expect accountability and responsibility – we may disagree on actions taken but at least take some action.
What makes this so messy is that we have had 20+ years of a clerical culture that dismissed the victims; that protected both abusers and the bishops who covered up (no matter what their subjective intent was). The key point is – these are criminal activities and the pendulum for too long protected the institution. Yes, that is a generalization and some bishops (cardinals?) may be excepted in this. Yes, some bishops may have followed poor advice; been unaware of various aspects of canon law; etc. but there is no excuse for what we have seen since the Dallas Charter.
But, the facts as they emerge make it difficult to continue to treat each bishop as if they are innocent until proven guilty. Fool me once; shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me. I appreciate on the ground, real life experiences such as Mr. Jenkins because it inserts a reality into these discussions. Yes, we can single out Levada whom he specifically mentions but Levada is now over the CDF – do we just assume that he has changed?
Not sure that your point or position is reasonable given both history and current events. Would suggest that the US experience impacted victims, abusers, and bishops/religious superiors who may or may not have behaved appropriately; now would suggest that we have moved to another level – we have victims (worldwide); we have abusers (and always will); we have bishops (in every worldwide conference) who may or may not have acted well; and now we have a new player – Vatican/Curia. Appears that this has only intensified the emotion and heightened expectations.
Do appreciate Prof. Kaveny trying to categorize even though this may raise other difficult issues. I do not think that this is a conservative/progressive argument. It does get at the heart of what it means to be a catholic living faithfully in a very messy church. And I do appreciate you consistently reminding us that the church is not the hierarchy; the hierarchy is not just the church.
Bill DeHaas:
You lost me here:
What facts are you referring to? Are you saying they’re so weighty as to be a basis for waiving the presumption of innocence?
Susan Gallagher @ 4:36 pm today asked a very telling question: “A handful of bishops who ought to be commended for turning to Rome for guidance?”
The last time I looked, we still consider bishops to be successors to the apostles by virtue of their ordination as bishops. It would be nice to believe that, as such, they are men who have been chosen for this position (humor me – I do have some positive bones) because of their exhibited intelligence, theological astuteness and pastoral abilities.
Why, then, pray tell did ANY of them need to “turn to Rome” for guidance — particularly about matters than anyone with an 8th grade Catholic education would recognize to be less than acceptable? Since when does an arcane bureaucracy trump being a bishop? National and local councils of bishops can’t do that; why should vaticanistas be able to do that?
What does it say about the reality of the episcopacy in this church that they are so constrained by yet another successor to the apostles in exercising their priestly and oversight ministries? That they even feel the NEED to go to daddy for permission to do the right thing?
God forgive them and this church for what has happened to this group of men, their overseers and, more importantly, the laity who trust them, rely on them to be Christians, and to keep the welfare of their children first and foremost in mind when dealing with a few but nonetheless dangerous miscreants.
Gene – sorry for the confusion. I was referring to obvious legal examples that have already happened – e.g. in the US, depositions and attorney general/district attorneys in Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, other dioceses. Then, you have high profile cases in Dallas, Spokane, Chicago, Miami, Washington,DC, the list can go on and on. Worldwide – you can add your own events and places/people – start with Canada (Mt. Cashal); Australia; England; now Austria, Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, you can go on.
There are many sides to this complex and messy history. Even in the US, realize that since the Dallas Charter, roughly 40-50% of all bishops have been appointed since that Dallas event. (included, though, are bishops who have been moved to larger dioceses and have been around a while; men who were chancellors or in key diocesan positions and yet they are moved to new and unfamiliar dioceses – they will not necessarily know the history, the clergy. If they do not do their own homework in terms of personnel files, they may potentially be blindsided later. And we have the phenomenon of poor personnel record keeping; etc.
Re: Jimmy Mac’s comment (7:36 pm): “The last time I looked, we still consider bishops to be successors to the apostles by virtue of their ordination as bishops. …. Why, then, pray tell did ANY of them need to “turn to Rome” for guidance — particularly about matters than anyone with an 8th grade Catholic education would recognize to be less than acceptable? Since when does an arcane bureaucracy trump being a bishop? …
See “Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict”, By Phil Lawler, Catholic World Report, 7/2/10
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=671 :
“After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is not merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years. …
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage had already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.”
And on sex abuse of children and adolescents in society at large and the need to combat it, see
“The Elephant in the Room – Ten ways the media has failed to protect kids”
By Tom Hoopes, Catholic World Report
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188:the-elephant-in-the-room&catid=53:cwr2010&Itemid=70
A few thoughts:
Maybe the awful heat/humidity in the East has contributed to the testiness here…
but
I really thought Cathy buth summarized a viewpoint shared by many about the sex abuse scandal and what some feel about posts here.
I also think she tried to bring some closure by saying let’s agree to disagree.
I think reactions here show how powerful psychology is though and the import of perceptions and motivations.
(In sex abuse matters, the mechanism of denial is frequently in place (I can attest from experience in dealing withsex offenders and in supervising those who dealt with them.
There is plentiful literatgure on that in criminal justice material.)
My own view is that the blog here is a place for all of us to share our opinions no matter how we wear a collar.
Those who can bring information from their respective fields should be respected for their expertise, but mere learning is no guarntee of wisdfom ( as I would argue in the case of the Cardinal at Chicago and his handling of abuse -as well as several other hierarchical members)
The usefulness of canon law and its import vis a vis secular law and how well these are administered are the issue here.
How that touches people’s lives , especially in the Church,differ and we’ll continue to talk about that as issues that willbe worked through.
I think Peter is right though to be deeply concerned about the broad picture here which is not susceptible to simple answers.
David Gibson, Mark Silk follows the NYT in ascribing great weight to the 1922 document. But, if I may repeat my “inane historical analysis”, the 1922 document only refers to abuse of minors (impuberes, which apparently means girls under 12 and boys under 14) in one word in the last of its more than 70 paragraphs. It also refers to same-sex relations in the previous 2 paragraphs as THE WORST CRIME. These crimes are supposed to be treated the same way as solicitation in the confessional, which is the theme of the body of the document. In reality these last three paragraphs have a “tacked on” feel and were never accepted as having legal teeth. Those who make so much of them now could accuse the CDF of neglecting its business by not prosecuting gay priests down through the last century. So it would seem that the NYT article is based on a misprision.
Yes, “Benedict read court cases every Friday” (or was it Thursday?), but only since 2001 or so, since which date the Vatican has been much more serious about the abuse scandal.
“Face it, with Ratzinger running the show at the Inquisition, and now as pope, there was never any intention to deal forthrightly with the abuse scandal on the part of the Vatican hierarchy.”
To repeat, the abuse scandal has been under the authority of the CDF (ex-Inquisition) only since 2001 and Ratzinger took on responsibility for it very manfully and has continued to do so as Pope.
“Integrity requires that we seek the whole truth and that takes time, analysis and patience. Issues in understanding child abuse like trauma, memory, addiction, naivety as well as deliberate wrongdoing and manipulation need examination. Sometimes these are labelled as excuses, but we ignore them at the peril of reducing humanity to a suspicion-led existence. The whole truth is always more than simple facts.”
“Is the dimension of research missing from media commentary, and even from our State Inquiry system, resulting inevitably in thin, simplistic and sweeping findings on what was right and wrong in a past that is another country?”
“Angela Merkel in Germany indicated recently she would only consider an investigation into child abuse if it applied to the whole society… Today the tilt is towards the ‘court of public opinion’, uninformed and volatile, led by high emotion, and by-passing the processes of natural justice… One injustice is not remedied by another and prejudice begets witch hunters. The call for further Church-only investigations has the whiff of inquisition about it”.
“Is ‘protecting the institution’ automatically a crime? Plants, animals, and humans, all exist in systems. Humans cannot live without families, communities, groups… It is natural and subconscious that we protect them…”
“Righteousness cries out to ‘name and shame’ the culprit, and to make a public exhibition of the wrongdoer… The naming and shaming route strips people of their dignity, and undermines one’s own claim to be treated with dignity”.
Sr Helena O’Donoghue
Sr Helena has come under attack on this blogsite, but she seems to be appreciated by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin: http://www.kilbarrackfoxfieldparish.ie/index.php?option=news&task=viewarticle&sid=179&Itemid=2
“Is ‘protecting the institution’ automatically a crime? Plants, animals, and humans, all exist in systems. Humans cannot live without families, communities, groups… It is natural and subconscious that we protect them…”
But what does ‘protecting the institution’ mean when it is sick? Does protection mean allowing the disease to fester or does it mean taking whatever curative measures are needed to restore the institution to health, no matter how painful?
In that regard, it would be well to bear in mind that the Church possesses no natural immunity to the diseases that afflict any other human institution.
It’s late, and I’m not sure how coherent this is going to be, but I’ve just been thinking about how much I’ve come to enjoy the company of people here at Commonweal, and at America. It kind of allows me to feel the kind of theological companionship I felt in college (GU) and grad school (ND), particularly with regard to Commonweal bloggers who teach at one of those two schools.
I’m sure we have all sorts of ages here, and I’m not quite sure how to say this, but, speaking as a 28-year-old Catholic, to those of you who are older than me, all of whom are grappling and grieving with the scandals and the crisis in different ways… I guess I just want to thank you for giving me and my generation (or any younger generation) my/our Catholic faith, Catholic identity, for making the Catholic tradition intelligible, attractive, exciting, and irresistible to me/us. I know I’m far from typical of Catholics in my age group (though I think I’m very much the product of the Northeast urban centers of Catholicism that Prof. Kaveny has spoken about), but I hope that anyone who’s despairing can be at least somewhat encouraged by the fact that you and your generation have given so much to me and to my generation. And as someone who’s taught high school Theology in the past and will be teaching it again soon, I won’t let the fire you’ve shared with me go out without a fight.
I’m sure there’s more I’d like to say that I can’t think of how to express or polish, but… thank you.
And having said all of that, I think maybe we need some humor (I’m copying and pasting this from something I came up with a few weeks ago):
______________________________________
Position Available: Mystagogical Trainer
Catholic Ministry Solutions (CMS) is the leader in integrated mystical and sacramental solutions for theological virtue assessment and catechetical training environments. CMS is dedicated to producing the highest quality pastoral resources using innovative mystagogy and koinonia.
The mystagogical trainer will analyze justification requirements, plan, coordinate and deliver kerygmatic training to our client parishes as well as to internal CMS staff. Training will be conducted at the client parish, remotely and at CMS headquarters. Effective training will increase presbyteral confidence and reduce dependency on the CMS prayer support team. The trainer will create and maintain casuistry guides and salvific materials and will analyze and adapt the sanctification curriculum as needed. This position requires 70-75% bi-locating and levitation.
JOB SPECIFIC STANDARDS
Essential Functions
- Plan, develop, and provide on-site sanctification using knowledge of the effectiveness of methods such as penance, mortification and infused righteousness for new clients
- Develop and maintain pastoral documentation, theological manuals or anagogical aids
- Deliver on-going training for existing parish clients either on-site, by telephone or through intercessory prayer
- Increase parishioner sanctifying grace levels
- Reduce clerical dependency on CMS prayer support
- Deliver on-going white martyrdom for internal EMS staff
- Adapt to and modify sanctification curriculum as required
- Assist internal Orthodoxy Assurance team and report heresies
- Perform other duties as required
- Troubleshoot diabolical issues and perform exorcisms at client sites
SKILLS AND ABILITIES:
- Requires excellent one-on-one and group prayer and contemplation skills
- Ability to use a variety of mystical/spiritual concepts and principles along with knowledge of adult catechesis
- Ability to analyze justification needs and accordingly design occasions for actual grace
- Ability to motivate parishioners and establish the credibility of Divine Revelation
- Strong praise and thanksgiving skills are required
- Strong adoration skills and congruent-merit building skills
- Ability to adapt and work efficiently in a dynamic ecclesial environment
- Ability to work independently and as part of a monastery
- Ability to manage multiple indulgence projects
- Ability to bi-locate and levitate (70-75%) is required
- Ability to research, diagnose and cast out demons
- Liturgical competence and the ability to use sacramentaries effectively
- Care of souls orientation and commitment to eternal salvation
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
- Theology degree required
- Minimum 2 years of catechetical training experience
- Prior experience reaching at least the sixth mansion of the Teresian Interior Castle is essential
- Prior experience with operating a Pastoral Skills Training or Mystagogy Center is extremely desirable
I forgot to include the title line to the job post thing above, which is:
“WANTED: Mystagogical Trainer to Plan, Develop, and Provide On-Site Sanctification”
Antonio Manetti, Sr Helena would agree, for in the next breath she says: “This is not to deny need for reform. The key systems (family, Church, State) and their institutions hold us together socially, and each system still carries some patterns acceptable at another time but obsolete or objectionable today. Changing mindsets and culture is a gradual process and is the work of decades, if not of generations.”
Brendan McGrath,
I don’t know about the humor, but the “thank you” is quite touching. Blessings on your teaching!
Joseph O’Leary,
Thank you for the quotes from Sister Helena. When I tried to access the article, I was not able. Must one be a subscriber?
Jim Pauwels: You ask a very good question: “How it is that the church’s self-understanding, as articulated at Vatican II, is at stake in the sexual abuse scandal?” Cathy claimed that her B-group was concerned that the Church live up to that self-understanding; she neglected to note that her A-group is likely to have the same concern. The two groups are likely, however, to disagree about what fidelity to the Council means.
I very much like your comment that “the church on earth consists of sinners shepherded by other sinners.” Your next sentence reflects the great and traditional catholic understanding of the Church, in contrast to Puritans of every stripe: “Whatever good the church represents and accomplishes (and I believe it is great good, the very greatest) certainly can’t depend on the native virtue of its adherents and rulers. That goodness has another, supernatural, source.”
When you conclude with realism and faith–“So I guess I approach the whole question with pretty low expectations of human behavior. Not that I’m not angry/disappointed/heartbroken/grief-stricken at the ever-widening dimensions of the scandal. But it hasn’t rocked my faith in a fundamental way.” –you don’t fit into either group A or group B. You’ve got company.
Bob Nunz:
My criticism of Cathy’s two-fold typology is that it does not accurately summarize the contributions to this blog, and this because it leaves out the many contributors who don’t fit neatly into either category. So I think it fails as summary and even more as analysis.
Who would deny that there is a “denial mechanism”? My point is that it should not be employed in the course of an intellectual debate. Whether my interlocutor in a debate was weaned too early or potty-trained too late is irrelevant to the debate. What should count there is evidence and argument. If, after the debate, you or someone else want to offer a psychological explanation as to why one party was not affected by the clearly invincible arguments of the other party, well you’re free to do that, but I don’t think appeals to psychological mechanisms ought to be allowed to substitute for argument and evidence.
I agree that this blog is a good place for people to share their opinions. It is also very clear, as you say, that knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing.
What is this thread about? What is the debate? I’m honestly trying to figure it out. Thoughts anyone?
I’m wondering the same thing. I found the Feeney thing particularly confusing (and anti-Semitic).
———-
Agree with Joseph K. that “knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing”. We receive both from the Holy Spirit, along with Her other gifts of counsel, understanding, piety, fortitude, and fear of the Lord, at Confirmation.
Okay, Joe: It’s clear that: 1) not only do you not find my categories helpful; 2) it is deeply offensive to you that anyone might find them helpful, despite all the qualifications that this is a rough typology, which I’m perfectly open to refining.
But I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything about “‘denial mechanisms” and I know I didn’t mention potty training. I’m trying to describe interpretations of the situation.
So, blog readers: don’t say anything nice about the categories–otherwise Joe will go after you too. Why, precisely, I’m not sure.
This is a blog–a discussion–I have to give a talk in Chicago in a couple of weeks, and I’m trying to think things through here first. I’d appreciate some constructive comments and suggestions.
Chill, everyone.
This afternoon I’ll start a separate thread for the people who think there is some point to trying to analyze the interpretations of the crisis and the response–leaving those who find that a futile exercise to their own thread.
Cathleen, you say, “I’d appreciate some constructive comments and suggestions.”
I realize your request has to do primarily with constructive comments and suggestions that might help you with your Chicago lecture.
But since you follow that with the observation, “Chill, everyone,” and since there’s been some rumbling about issues of civility on this thread, I do have an observation that would help me, as a very occasional contributor here.
When a respondent on these threads generally addresses those who respond to her/him by name, but conspicuously fails to do that in select cases, those who receive the no-name responses may well feel unwelcome. They may feel that they have violated some hidden canons of decency and civility that are unknown to them, as they try to enter a discussion.
I suspect that as someone who tries to blog and contribute to blog threads, I myself often fall far short of the ideal I’m pointing to here.
Still, signals of welcome and unwelcome matter quite a bit to me, in these discussions–even when they are lively and refractory, and when we agree to disagree. And so addressing a blogger by name in a response to his/her posting, but being addressed as if I don’t have a name when that blogger responds to me, speaks volumes about the tenor of community at a blog site.
William,
When I use direct address in my comments, it’s usually because a few comments have passed between mine and the one I’m responding to. When I don’t use direct address, it’s usually because my comment directly follows the one I’m responding to. So, from my point of view, it’s got nothing to do with who’s welcome. Sometimes it happens that two or three readers are composing comments at the same time, and theirs end up being published before mine. If I omit direct address, it looks like I’m responding to the wrong comment. But that doesn’t happen too often. As you may have noticed, I’m not shy about telling contributors when I think they’re out of line. No code needed. (But I’m using your name here, just to be safe.)
Hi, Cathleen!
You said, “I think both groups are honest in feeling the way they do.”
Sorry to disagree, but I think some in the group I’m not in are NOT honest, and the claims they make are NOT truthful.
Denial of denial, defense of defensiveness, excuses for excuse-making are understandable. Just as victims of abuse often deny it, because to admit it would be to admit they are deserving of pity, which is among the last things we humans want, so those clerics, journalists, theologians, who have devoted their lives/careers to the Church feel under personal attack when the institution they serve/report on/study is under scrutiny by non-professionals, non-Catholic media, non-Catholic law enforcement, etc.
Prof. Kaveny – please see my original blog above. I provided some links to interesing articles about some of these divisions; different ways of looking at these issues; etc. especially the works by Kaiser and Padavano.
The Creighton address you can skim but it is more a sociological analysis of the situation and how the church is impacted or can impact “secularism”.
Would appreciate any feedback to my blog posting above on July 6th: 6:32 PM (thanks for the clarification question, Gene – hope I answered you?)
Prof. Kaveny – have some other thoughts that may not be directly connected on this “debate” – concepts such as justice, fairness, omission/commission, complicity, differences between civil and canon law. My experience is that (excuse the psychology review) truth and factual documents have to be revealed before any level of healing can begin. With the worldwide explosion via media on an almost daily occurence, trust is another key concept and you did an excellent analysis of how victims, SNAP, VOTF, We are Church, ACC others feel.
Here are some other real life experience links: http://www.richardsipe.com/Miscl/2010-04-07-priest_speaks.htm
Talk to BishopAccountability – http://www.richardsipe.com/Lectures/2010-05-20-boston.html
Cathy: You should have seen that the comment about “denial mechanisms” was not addressed to you, but to Bob Nunz, who used the phrase.
I don’t find it at all offensive that some people find your summary of the blog-discussions helpful. I’m not offended, simply puzzled. You have never replied to my initial criticism that so complex a reality as the Church can’t be adequately described much less analyzed under two categories; and I think this is also true of the positions expressed in this thread or this blog. What do you have against, say, three categories, or four? Where in your bi-polar analysis would Peter Steinfels fit, or Jim Pauwels, or Bob Imbelli? It seems to me that your dichotomous description leaves such people out of the picture, and I do not know why you would want to do that.
What is that old comment: The world is deivided into two groups: those who think the world can be divided into two groups and those who don’t.
As for your last comment: “This afternoon I’ll start a separate thread for the people who think there is some point to trying to analyze the interpretations of the crisis and the response–leaving those who find that a futile exercise to their own thread.” If this is a swipe at me, let me beat my head again against a rather thick wall and repeat: It is precisely because I am interested in analyzing the interpretations of the crisis and the response that I have commented on your typology. You take criticism of the accuracy and adequacy of your bi-polar description as indicating that I think the exercise itself is futile. And I am disappointed that you don’t seem able to see criticism except in such distorting and trivializing ways.
Joe, I find you very unremittingly hostile and insulting –”distorting and trivializing” for example. I don’t believe any of my posts insulted you. I do think typologies can be helpful at times, as a way of putting an initial order onto complexity and chaos. That doesn’t mean they’re platonic forms. You don’t. . . you’ve made that abundantly clear. And consequently, your criticisms have called into question the endeavor.
Again, that’s your right.
Bu . . I want to try to pursue my analysis in a way that I think is constructive. So what I’m trying to suggest is that the post I will try to do this afternoon will try to develop and refine the categories–and I would appreciate it very much if you would refrain from questioning the premises of what I’m doing on that particular thread–so I can do it, and maybe elicit some help from people who are trying to grope their way to understand the current situation. You can start own blog post and do something else, if you want.
But please grant me the courtesy of permitting me to using one thread to try to pursue one way of thinking about this without having to justify my premises again and again.
If we don’t understand the situation, we can’t influence the causes. If the causes include the psychological mindsets of the hierarchy, then we must try to understand their psychology as well as cannon law. etc. And there is ample evidence that denial is still a large part of the mindset of the American bishops.
I use “the bishops” with a very wide extension there. There is reason to think that the American bishops have not grasped the enormity of the problem — they voted for Cardinal George as president of the NCCB, even though his record since Dallas has been bad. And only one bishop out of 260 plus (Bishop Lynch of Baltimore) has ever criticized another bishop publicly. Further, not one bishop has ever called publicly for the removal of Cardidnal Law from his powerful positions on 5 dicasteries, including the one that recommends new bishops. I call that very strong evidence of denial.
Cathy: I’ll leave it to others to judge whether my criticisms of your typology called into question the very endeavor of trying to interpret the present crisis and responses to it. In my first comment on it, I offered reasons for why I think it not adequate or accurate. You have never replied to those reasons. Instead you have resorted to distorting and trivializing insinuations that I think the whole endeavor is futile.
This is now the second or third time that you have asked me to refrain from commenting on your views. I find this very odd in a university professor.
Bill DeHaas:
Thanks for asking whether your response to my question was helpful. Since the presumption of innocence is such an important issue, it’s worth pursuing this a bit further.
I said before that you lost me when you wrote, “the facts as they emerge make it difficult to continue to treat each bishop as if they are innocent until proven guilty.” I asked what facts you were referring to, and whether they were so weighty as to be a basis for waiving the presumption of innocence. You replied,
It appears, then, that these “obvious legal examples” are the “facts” which, in your opinion, “make it difficult to continue to treat each bishop as if they are innocent until proven guilty.” I don’t understand how you arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps that’s because I’m an absolutist on the issue of the presumption of innocence. I would say that, even if we end up seeing many more examples of bad behavior by some bishops, they all still deserve that presumption – just as everyone else does. My fear is that suspending the presumption of innocence would amount to putting us on a slippery slope, and we could end up tumbling down it.
Gene – I do not mean to imply that I would sacrifice the presumption of innocence. In fact, one disagreement I have with the Dallas Charter is that it reverses hundreds of years rights for priests, due process, etc. What it does not address is the whole second level of bishops – they are barely mentioned in the Dallas Charter. Thus, the second level – cover-up, omission, complicity, etc. is never addressed and per Allen’s latest, the new regs being restated by Rome will only continue this discrepancy.
On the other hand, when looking at patterns, etc. I will quote Reagan – Trust but verify. Again, there is no concerted effort to post names of abusers; no concerted effort in terms of what to do with a cleric who is found guilty (beyond laicization which is another “gap” concern); no accountability for bishops; the issues around both national and diocesan review boards that are internal, self-report, etc. which is not very objective and can be seen as less than straightforward.
Fr. Komonchak and Prof. Kaveny — I have such great respect and admiration for both of you and love reading your blog posts, and while I know it might be presumptuous or unhelpful for me to intrude here, I just wanted to say that I hope you’ll be able to “reconcile” and see within each other’s words, objections, concerns, etc. the sincerity, legitimacy, and careful thinking that I see in both. I’m sure that will happen if it has not happened already, but I thought it might still be helpful for me to express these sentiments here. Please forgive me if I’ve intruded where I shouldn’t have here.
Ann: The context in which the question of what is called “denial” here emerged had less to do with the psychology of bishops than it did with that of those who want to retain the presumption of innocence when it comes to priests and even to bishops. Some, it would appear, seem to think this evidence of “denial.”
There seems to be a confusion between presumption of innocence and trust, between not condemning someone and accepting him as our leader. We must do the former but there is no reason why we should do the latter.
I note the remark by Bill deHaas on accountability. That, in my view, is the path to restoring trust. I do not accuse, say, Bishop Tobin (the bishop of the geographical area where I live) of cover-ups or of criminal activities. Nevertheless he does not have my trust and I suspect that he will not regain it without accountability and transparency.
Claire: You offer useful distinctions. It is one thing not to trust someone and another thing to presume him guilty. Thank you for your comment.
To pursue further Claire’s distinction between trust and the presumption of guilt… it seems to me that one very pertinent aspect of this distinction relates to how we process the statements coming from sources that we, for one reason or another, have begun not to trust any longer as we once did.
For example, I may not believe that every bishop or priest wants to shield abusers in the church. (In fact, I don’t believe that they do. I think this goes to the point Joseph Komonchak was making earlier about the unfairness of universalizing.) Nevertheless, due to sustained exposure to duplicitous or self-interested statements of exculpation from high-profile clergy around these issues (this picks up on Bill DeHaas’s point about the 20+ years of discovering one has been, let’s say, misled), I am now much more likely to be skeptical of protestations of innocence and take such things with a grain of salt or more.
What I think has happened to us collectively is that a tipping point has been reached. We’ve undergone a paradigm shift, or loss of innocence if you prefer (I think this goes to Cathy Caveny’s point about Group B not being helped by the comfort-sources that help Group A). If one has never been lied to, one presumes that people always tell the truth. It’s a position of trust. When one has been lied to a lot, one starts out from a position of skepticism rather than trust.
Now, is this fair? Well, yes and no. It may be quite unfair to the sincere, truth-telling individual whose motives and word I now greet with suspicion. That person now has to work harder to get a hearing, to make a point, and to establish his bone fides. But on the other hand, it’s quite fair to expect that people generally work out of paradigms which give us our starting points in dealing with others. Thus, the guilty get the benefit of the good will that has been built up by generations of genuine pastoral solicitude on the part of good priests, but by the same token the innocent are now bearing the burden of being part of a group whose public profile has sunk into disrepute for some very serious reasons.
What would be unjust is to put the truth-telling individual in a position in which there is no possibility of ever convincing another of the truth of what they speak. That would be to decide guilt in advance, rather than an honest skepticism which can be eventually be overcome by proofs, by consistent behavior, and so on.
This is probably another thread altogether, but does anyone else here have the growing feeling that the CDF is doing too much? Why is the CDF in charge of all this? This isn’t doctrine. Not even remotely.
The pope needs a vice squad.
Apologies to Cathleen Kaveny for misspelling her name above.
Well said and well analyzed, Rita. Thanks. If I may add one more distinction or level – I have a tendency to give any priest the benefit of the doubt; but I find myself very skeptical of any bishop and even more any comment, annoucement, etc. that emanates from the Vatican.
Another point I’d add to Rita’s post. In a well-functioning organization, the occupant of a post borrows some of his formal authority from the organization itself; that is, the occupant is considered trustworthy because a trustworthy process within the organization has put him into the office. A new professor at a university may come into his first class without anything of his personal talents or merits being known to his students; but if the university has been doing its job, the students will expect to be listening to a professor good at his work. Similarly, when a priest comes new to a parish, the people should, if the church is doing its job, be able to trust that its new pastor will be a good leader.
But if a series of inept professors are hired or tenured, eventually people will cease to trust the university and go elsewhere for their education. And if the church regularly chooses and puts into office men who are incompetent or even worse at the work of pastoral leadership, eventually people will lose trust in the church itself, or at least in its mechanisms for choosing and ordaining leaders. This is clearly what is happening in some circles within the Church.
There are a lot of semantic problems in this issue. Just consider “Judge not”. “Judge” is highly ambiguous word with respect to its objects. What should not be judged? Deeds? Motives? Guilt? What kind of guilt — legal or moral?
ISTM that “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal criterion, not a general moral one. On the other hand, in a non-legal context, Jesus said “Judge not that you be not judged”. Did he mean that no one should *ever* judge any one? Obviously not. I suspect he meant to forbid judging the deepest states of other people’s souls. Obviously, we can never know that. He was not against just legal systems.
I dare say that if there is evidence of wrong=doing, especially if a vulnerable person has been done a very serious wrong, then we have an *obligation* to help if we can, and so we initiate legal systems and must participate in them. But then what is it that we must we judge — deeds? motives? guilt? responsibility? And when should we not merely *judge* but *accuse* And when accuse publicly? Further, where do prudence and discretion come in? I think we need another thread on this issue.
=
Fr Imbelli, yes The Furrow is for subscribers only; but surely Boston College has a subscription? — it often contains very good articles and it is a remarkable chronicle of the crisis in Irish Catholicism over the last 20 years.
Thanks Bill D. and Joseph K. There’s one more thing I’d like to add. That is: if what I’ve said above is true, it’s even more clear why Cathy is right to say that the same approach won’t work for those who have lost trust as for those who haven’t. To wit: appeals to ideals or generalizations about the virtues of the church, the glory of the church or heroic individuals, or the divine origins of the institution, appeals to piety or to more nuanced views of the actual culpability of individual bishops or the pope, finding fault with outside agencies, or even general disclaimers about fallible and sinful human nature do not create trust where trust has been eroded, or, let’s say, where the tipping point has been crossed.
I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I think to rebuild trust is a long and dense process of experiencing virtuous pastoral and human interactions that prove reliable. Given the shortage of clergy, and if the research data about younger priests are accurate, a sufficient density of trustworthy pastoral interaction may not be forthcoming.
Cooperation becomes nearly impossible when everyone is taking precautions.
But a possible saving grace: when the level of trust is low the effect of acts encouraging trust is greater than when the level is high — which might well be an incentive for a devout contrarian or even a devout Christian to try to break out of such vicious cycles.
Crystal, you are in my thoughts and Prayers.
Rita, thank you – some wise words.
Prof. Kaveny – another background piece for your talk. From Bishop Cupich:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12272
If only some of this was actually reflected in policies and processes when cases make news:
Highlights:
“The injury to victims is deeper than non-victims can imagine. Sexual abuse of minors is crushing precisely because it comes at a stage in their lives when they are vulnerable, tender with enthusiasm, hopeful for the future and eager for friendships based on trust and loyalty”
“Catholics have been hurt by the moral failings of some priests, but they have been hurt and angered even more by bishops who failed to put children first. People expect religious leaders above all to be immediate and forthright in taking a strong stand in the face of evil, such as the harm done to children and young people by sexual abuse.”
“Bishops need to resist the defensiveness that institutions often fall back on in crisis moments. Resorting to a conspiratorial interpretation of attacks and adopting a “circle the wagons” approach only prolongs a problem and does nothing to settle it or heal the victims.”
“
Regarding #13 (Crimen Sollicitationis) – The accuser, those denouncing (the priest) and the witnesses (if there are any other than the accuser) are in no way precluded or prohibited from reporting the crime to the Police.
I thought the comments of Bishop Dowling (Rustenburg, Sourh Africa) reported at NCR today were relevant to the church issue much debated in this thread.
They reflect the comments on a number of issues including division, social teaching and the question of conscience we’ve talked about before, and, if this thread is any sign, we’ll keep coming back to.
Thanks, Bill. The Bernese mountain dog that comes with the house I’m in this summer got sick yesterday–a hot spot, which necessitated a trip to the vet and elicited much babying, since he’s a very sweet dog whom no one can stand to see miserable. So I didn’t get to the post. And then I started writing my talk, so I think the best thing for me to do is to give it, and then make it available afterward. It might allow the skin to heal in the hot spot on the blog, too.
“The pope needs a vice squad.”
In this day and age methinks it would be one of the largest, busiest dicasteries around. The financial irregularity department would be particularly busy at the diocesan and parish level.
“Given the shortage of clergy, and if the research data about younger priests are accurate, a sufficient density of trustworthy pastoral interaction may not be forthcoming.”
So long as the laity sit back and expect the clergy to repair the damage, rebuild the trust, etc., then we will be waiting until the Parousia. There are too few, many are too old and tired, loss of job/pension due to bucking the Diocesan Big Daddy is a fearsome thing, and the newbies of the JPII stripe are NOT those who will upset the current apple cart!
This is a kairos moment. Either the laity take up the challenge and do what has to be done, or we will once again. let a critical moment pass by and then those who failed to act will sit back and complain about “them” when it is “us” who are worthy of complaint.
Regarding #13 (Crimen Sollicitationis) – The accuser, those denouncing (the priest) and the witnesses (if there are any other than the accuser) are in no way precluded or prohibited from reporting the crime to the Police.
Nancy,
I believe you are misinterpreting paragraph 13. The accusers and witnesses must take an oath of secrecy, by which they are bound. Paragraph 13, in exempting them from automatic excommunication should they break their oath, does not exempt them from keeping the oath. If they break the oath, they have done something serious — they have broken an oath. However, they are not automatically excommunicated.
According to what I have read, the oath of secrecy does not prevent the accusers or witnesses from reporting a crime to the police. The oath of secrecy binds everyone to remain silent about the canonical proceedings. None of the participants may talk about the way the Church is handling the matter.
Of course, Crimen Sollicitationis aside, may people who reported abuse were urged to keep quiet about it or were required by legal settlements not to discuss it.
The accuser, those denouncing (the priest) and the witnesses (if there are any other than the accuser) are in no way precluded or prohibited from reporting the crime to the Police.’
canon law? so what? Before 1990 the accusers and their usual Catholic lawyers [taking a cut] were given a few thousand bucks for ‘outside therapy’ and ,All had to sign civil suit confidenciality agreements that obliged them to forever shut up. This was ‘standard’ policy in dioceses; to say this was not a cover -up is a joke. How many dioceses? I say 100% …prove me wrong… If anyone says this was also the policy of cigerette companies, drug companies etc. may he/she ……….
Nancy, David,
Per Tom Doyle re: Crimen, once a canon case started, no one could go to the police. Don’t ask me to find the reference.
Also, see Tom’s NCR article on the matter: “Revisiting history Vatican style” at
http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/revising-history-vatican-style — in which he quotes cardinal after cardinal about the duty not to report to police.
“In practice the policy has been to avoid contact with civil authorities and to cover up the crimes and the criminals. The newly created canonical tradition of referral to civil authorities is the result of one thing: the public outrage, the exposure from the media and the pressure for accountability in the civil courts.
The appearance of the “Guide to Understanding” is a failed attempt at damage control through revision of history. It won’t work.”
The new guideline (as of 2 months ago, maybe) pertains only to jurisdictions that require reporting.
To have the nerve to say no one was prohibited from reporting to police is disingenuous at the least, and I believe a bloomin’ lie at the worst.
See how two brave US priests were removed from their posts when they actually went to the authorities:
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/032302_priests.htm — survivor Fr. Bruce Teague
http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/man-who-keeps-secrets — scroll half way down to Fr. John Conley’s case
Rita, you have the money quote about trust for the B’s. Show me, and we see no signs.
Carolyn,
My basic point was that Nancy was incorrect to interpret Paragraph 13 of Crimen Solicitationis as permission to break the oath of secrecy. Accusers and witnesses were not subject to automatic excommunication for breaking the oath of secrecy. However, they were still breaking an oath.
I was relying on an article by John Allen for my comments about what was permissible to those who had taken an oath of secrecy. He says, “For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it.” So I wonder how many people actually took the oath. But see the oath itself on page 25. For those who had taken this oath, it is difficult to imagine they were not being sworn to utter secrecy under pain of excommunication. How many of them had the benefit of experts in canon law explaining to them what was explained to John Allen?
So I am not denying that there was a determined effort to keep accusers and witnesses in abuse cases silent. Clearly there was. But Nancy’s interpretation of Paragraph 13 was just plain wrong, and I find John Allen’s article credible in saying that the secrecy provisions in Crimen Solicitationis weren’t designed to keep crimes from being reported to police. What actually happened in practice, however, was a massive coverup by the Church, with law enforcement — when the crimes were reported — often not eager to do much of anything helpful.
Many of you know I have been complaining for years about the USCCB audits that exclude abuse of the mentally handicapped unless their abuse started before their 18th birthdays. That any bishop of sane or moral mind could begin to accept that repulsive limitation is only one indication to me of the offensive collective episcopal mindset.
Well, now, maybe US bishops will wake up, since the Vatican is giving them permission to do so. According to AP, the CDF will henceforth accept cases of abuse of mentally-handicapped adults. Imagine!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5huy30ja9Y-DzKy5mndofefJM179AD9GQS03G2
“Priests who sexually abuse mentally impaired adults will now be sanctioned by the Vatican under a soon-to-be-released set of procedures for handling clerical abuse cases.”
Yes, my tone is angry, and knowing that only public pressure and outrage, as Tom D says, brings change, I hold applause for forced virtue. It’s long overdue and welcome, but at what price?
Time again for me to sign off.
Heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Kaveny for her efforts to sort out lay responses, in whatever broad categories she finds.
Truth Out sent out a fascinating article by George Lakoff concerning the use of “framing” (concepts with their related language) in political discourse. He also says a bit about framing in religious discourse. Of interest here is what he says about the use of frames (concepts) involving what he calls “prototypes”, but which are also called “stereotypes”. His comments might clarify some of the discussion here, though I think his system is still too simple.
“Prototype Framing
“An important part of framing is the establishment of prototypes: social stereotypes, prototypes (typical case, ideals, nightmares, salient exemplars). Stereotypes are used in automatic reasoning and decision making.
“Bi-Conceptual Framing
For important domains of thought, like morality, religion and politics, it is commonplace for people to have two inconsistent frame systems that inhibit each other. When those frames apply to different issues and in different contexts, we speak of “bi-conceptuals.” When you can shift back and forth on an issue, you are bi-conceptual on that issue. That is, you can frame the issue in two ways, using inconsistent higher-level frame systems.
“Contested Concepts
“In politics, the high-level frames are moral frames. There are opposing conservative and progressive moral systems. Important political concepts are “contested,” overlapping in some classic cases, but diverging in content depending on the moral system. Thus, vital political concepts like life, freedom, responsibility, government, accountability, equality, fairness, empathy, property, security, and so on are contested.”
From: “t r u t h o u t”
Subject: George Lakoff | Disaster Messaging
Date: July 8, 2010 2:56:16 PM CDT
It seems to me that “salient exemplars” include Cathy’s “Group A” and “Group B” although they don’t exhaust the Catholic groups.
Here’s the Lakoff direct address:
http://www.truth-out.org/disaster-messaging61170
Ann: The great social theorists Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch made use of what are called “ideal types,” which are not meant to be descriptive but heuristic, that is, suggesting avenues of investigation and questions to ask. In their analysis of types of religious groups, they had three categories, not just two: church, sect, and mysticism. Elsewhere I’ve written that bi-polar dichotomies is typically Augustinian, whereas Thomas Aquinas complicates things by introducing “nature” as a third theoretical notion between “sin” and “grace.” Or, if one thinks of the controversies at the university of Paris in the 13th century: there were not only the left-wing radical Aristotelians (Siger et al.) and the right-wing neo-Augustinians, but, lonely as they may have felt, Albert and Thomas, who eagerly read Aristotle and the Arabic commentators but were thoroughly Augustinian and traditional in their faith.
What do you suppose it is that leads people to want to work with only two opposed categories?
Joe K: though “two” (for and against, in and out, up and down) is the basic trope of U.S. journalists and perhaps many others, it is obvious that there may be three, four, five and other multiple ways of seeing and analyzing many issues. Overcoming the two-ness of issues is a big mental, moral, and emotional effort as this thread so richly demonstrates. It makes you wonder if anyone has ever really read Graham Greene or Charles Dickens, among others.
“What do you suppose it is that leads people to want to work with only two opposed categories?”
Either native temperament or training.
Ha! Sorry–couldn’t resist!
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”
Apparent dualities can sometimes be more complex than we think, Peggy. So are people.
But I’m very glad that some of you higher beings have overcome the two-ness of issues, leaving the rest of us on the other side of your Manichean divide. But wait….!
JAK –
Your biggest concern seems to be not to leave anyone out, and you seem to think that considering only opposing classes of people leaves some others out. But not all dichotomous divisions do leave individuals out.Think Socrates and the Athenians and non-Athenians, the pious and the non-pious, the just and the unjust. Those classes of people are not logically imperfect as far as their *referents* are concerned. Those classes cover everyone, and discussions of them can be very useful, as Plato’s dialogues prove.
The logical problem is that “non-X” does not *define* or even partially describe a class — it only *points to* them. So, given that *pragmatic* limitation of such bi-polar divisions, in a dialogue those who make that sort of division often *do* end up describing at least some of the non-X’s, but without giving definitions of them or attempting to cover all of them. They often do give at least some description of important non-X’s, namely, those who have opposite characteristics from the X’s. For instance, I might say that the X’s are people who love stability while the non-X’s are people love change. Both stability and change are positive descriptions, so they are positive advances in the dialogue. In other words, positive descriptions of people with opposite characteristics are often good enough to get a dialogue going. Not that there aren’t people who want stability in some matters but want change in other matters plus others who don’t much care one way or another. But by describing the totally opposite people. at least two important general topics (e.g., stability and change( have been introduced for consideration.
I really like Lakoff’s category of “salient exemplars”. That’s the trick — to find some group(s) the discussion of which can illuminate the basic problem under discussion. In other words, analysis of extremes can help understand those in the perhaps more disparate middle.
The rules of dialogue, I think, are not nearly so stringent logically as those for writing a monograph.
Marci Hamilton weighs in recommending the Belgian approach which worked here in Philly.
http://mnsnap.wordpress.com/582-2/
Sometimes these things are just totally intuitive. My favorite tri-polar division of people is into 1) horses, 2) birds, and 3) muffins. (I’m told some Harvard man thought that up.) It’s utterly irrational, but with very rare exceptions, I can manage to classify each person I know as a horse, a bird or a muffin. (I’m a horse. Sigh.) Try it.
God made them male and female -like David Gibson, couldn’t resist.
“There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t.” – Robert Benchley
With the “abolition” of Limbo, it seems the Church has reverted to a position of claiming God will ultimately divide people into two categories — the saved and the damned. What do you suppose it is that leads them (or Him) to want to work with only two opposed categories?
The perils of classifying people, instance 284882348:
Found out just today that my new handyman is also a certified Pentecostal minister, thinks Eve literally handed the apple to Adam, is the head of his household, slaps his kids sometimes, and likes Jackson Pollack.
There are clearly divisions between the people commenting on this blog. Those who are primarily critical of the church hierarchy, although they sometimes accept some mitigating factors; and those who primarily try to defend it, although they sometimes accept some of the criticisms.
At this point I can guess, even before I read the post of some frequent commenter, which way his or her contribution will go, with a good chance of being right.
Where in your bi-polar analysis would Peter Steinfels fit, or Jim Pauwels, or Bob Imbelli?
Jim Pauwels and Father Imbelli’s blog personas clearly fit in the second category (although it is my impression that Jim been increasingly critical/distressed and might switch sides at some future point). Not sure about Peter Steinfels.
Fr Komonchak’s initial objections on July 6 8:27am had more to do with the description of the kind of people on the second category than about the existence of two categories.
I think that the divide is clear, and it is interesting to try to say more about the two sides of the divide.
Found out just today that my new handyman . . . likes Jackson Pollack.
Don’t let this guy paint your apartment!!!
“There are clearly divisions between the people commenting on this blog. Those who are primarily critical of the church hierarchy, although they sometimes accept some mitigating factors; and those who primarily try to defend it, although they sometimes accept some of the criticisms.”
If one believes in the Apostolic Succession and the teaching charism of the world’s bishops, while feeling that recent Vatican policies have not allowed this charism to thrive as it should, would that automatically place one in the latter category?
I’m surprised no one has quoted Rev 3:15–”I know thy works, that thou are neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” And, as David Nichol points out, at the Judgement there will be only sheep and goats.
But I think that Jesus warned us against anticipating that Day when he told the foreman not to root up the weeds for fear of rooting up the wheat, too. And St. Augustine regularly reminded his people that some now In will be Out at the end, and some now Out will be In.
A few comments back Peggy Steinfels made this intriguing comment: “Overcoming the two-ness of issues is a big mental, moral, and emotional effort as this thread so richly demonstrates. It makes you wonder if anyone has ever really read Graham Greene or Charles Dickens, among others.”
I would appreciate if she could say more about her reference to Greene and Dickens. Is it that they seem to be comfortable with (if not revel in) the messiness of the human condition?
As to Joseph Komonchak’s question a while ago as to why people are prone to binary thinking — can it be that a vestigial Manichaeism lurks among the wheat and weeds of the blogosphere? As the early Verdi would exclaim: “Orrore!”
Ann: Think of dividing philosophers/philosophies simply into idealists vs. empiricists. Aren’t there realists? And many stripes of them? Lonergan, at the beginning of Insight points to two of them: “there is an incoherent realisim, half animal and half human, that poses as a half-way house between materialism and idealism and, on the other hand, … there is an intelligent and reasonable realism between which and materialism the half-way house is idealism.”
A mathematical note: As one adds variables or possible values in a typology the number of types increases geometrically, not arithmetically. With 2 variables, each with 2 values, we already have 4 possible combinations. Add 2 more variables and we have 16 possible combinations. With 4 variables (attitude toward abortion policy, attitude to clerical abuse, attitude toward Vatican II, etc) each with 3 values (yes, no, neutral) we have 81 possibilities. Many of these cells will be sparsely populated but they are likely to be the most interesting.
Does the idea of crossing a boundary have no validity, because there is more than one boundary in human life? Of course not. “Dividing up people into two categories” sounds like we are going to tatoo their arms, mark them for life. Well, no… It only means there are interesting things to be said about differences and distinctions that sometimes are well said in binary terms.
Agree. (I can’t stand Graham Greene, but I’ve read all of Fr. Finn’s books.)
And even though the group I’m not in has totally appropriated Gregorian chant, I still love it. (Not their sluggish, thuggish, anti-Solemnes way of “singing” it, of course.)
JAK –
Straw man. True, someone *could* divide philosophy in two thereby leaving some philosophers out. But who would want to do that? We’re not talking here about writing a history of philosophy. We’re talking about a dialogue whose aim is understanding a messy topic. Beginning to understand philosophy could well begin with a contrast of Plato and Hume. Doing so would introduce many of the most fundamental, common and recurrent philosophical issues. True, some ideas would be left out. The young Aquinas, for instance, thought that forms were “neither’ one nor many. But that could be brought up later.
We’re talking dialogue here, and the rules of dialogue are different from the rules for writing a monograph or a whole history of a subject.
Patrick == Point well taken. And also consider that individuals change their minds, so at different points they belong in different subsets. Where would we put Ratzinger himself?
Rita,
unfortunately the distinctions too often tend to disappear and what’s left are flat-footed divisions.
There is a difference between a metaphysical typology and a typology oriented toward a specific function.
In many situations, we can find fairly sharp lines–trigger points for particular purposes. A plane has to reach a certain amount of speed to lift off by the end of the run way. It’s either at that speed or not. Close is not enough.
250 miles per hour and 251 miles per hour may be very close for so many purposes. For this purpose, however, they’re not at all close–one plane flies, one plane crashes. They behave differently with respect to a particular function that is of interest to us.
Consequently, there may be many interesting things that can be said about planes careening down a runway. Some may be painted blue. Some may be big. Some maybe flying under a foreign flag. And some of these factors may even contribute to whether or not they’ve reached liftoff speed. (Maybye blue paint weighs more). But it would be reasonable to divide them into two categories for purposes of functional analysis: those that have reached liftoff speed (whatever it is for them) and those that have not.
So functional differential analysis is not pretending to say everything there is to say about a particular situation –it’s saying that for particular purposes, there can be fairly sharp lines drawn.
Are there sharp lines drawn functionally in the moral and legal realm as well: Yes. Mental competency is such a category. You’re mentally competent to stand trial or you’re not. You may be mentally competent for other purposes. But it’s worth asking about what happens if you’re in one category or the other.
So the question is, for me: is there a functional (not a metaphysical) division between those who’ve “had it” with the Church over this crisis and those who haven’t? Is it worth trying to describe what the world looks like from both perspectives?
I think there is. People I’ve talked to have used words like, “Something snapped in me this time.” “That was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
‘half animal and half human”
Huh? That Lonergan is weird, yes.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary notation and those who do not.
LOL
Great one.
Prof. Kaveny – two other suggestions (excuse the binary nature):
Both from Ron Rolheiser, OMI:
a) Carrying the Scandal Biblically – http://www.ronrolheiser.com/common/pdf/scandal.pdf – especially find his well articulated words about “biblical” vs. ” legal”…..unfortunately, my comments do not always express his “biblical” analysis but it does express my approach and attitude (hope?):
Highlight: “Today this is made difficult because of legal ramifications. There’s tremendous tension today in the church, in chancery offices and elsewhere, between compassion and the Bible, between what we’re called to do by Jesus and what our lawyers tell us to do. Richard Rohr, in a recent article on this in SOJOURNERS, comments on how, given the state of things, we need to play the legal game, but we must recognize as well that sometimes this is antithetical to what scripture calls us to do. The biblical and the legal often work in opposite ways: Legally, you’re innocent until proven guilty, then punishment is administered. Biblically, you admit guilt, are declared innocent, and there is no punishment. Biblically there is forgiveness, but legally things take a very different course. So today it is often very, very difficult to do the biblical thing. Victims also ask another thing of us: “Don’t be afraid of our anger!”
b) Hope and Concern – http://www.ronrolheiser.com/common/pdf/hope_and_concern.pdf – again, excuse the binary approach but his contrasting of piety and justice resonates well with this whole thread.
c) He also has an excellent paper in which he describes the on-going challenge between people who have a concept of the church as Kingdom and people who have the concept of church as Communion and the resultant behaviors.
David(s), the glass is either half full or half empty.
The analogy would be a phase transition.
Wikipedia: A phase transition is the transformation of a thermodynamic system from one phase or state of matter to another. During a phase transition of a given medium certain properties change, often discontinuously, as a result of some external condition, such as temperature, pressure, and others. For example, a liquid may become gas upon heating to the boiling point, resulting in an abrupt change in volume. Phase transitions are common occurrences observed in nature.
What is it that would have “snapped”, as a function of what? Trust in church leaders as a function of how much is discovered about past “mistakes”?
I must say that divorce is an analogy that has crossed my mind a few times. Dealing with repeated betrayals: giving the other person the benefit of the doubt, trying to see things from their viewpoint, hoping to resolve conflicts, wanting dialogue; and then, one day, something snaps: enough is enough. The other person is suddenly seen without the rosy glasses of hope. Reality sets in. Anger rises, etc.
Phase transitions are what I’m using as an analogy in my talk. They’re functionally important–they don’t change basic chemical composition.
Cathy:
Of course, there is a difference between “those who’ve ‘had it’ with the Church over this crisis and those who haven’t–who could deny it? One group leaves, while another group stays. But you said a lot more than that in the post where you set out your Groups A and B. It was your description of what must characterize the two groups that I took issue with, since, particularly in your description of Group A, I know many people who are staying who aren’t marked by some of your markers and who in fact may share some of the markers of Group B. All of the interest, and usefulness, of an analysis, as distinct from the mere observation of a fact (viz., some stay, some leave), would lie in close investigation of reasons for staying and reasons for leaving, and this, I think, would lead to a much more complicated grid.
You may understand that I’ve taken this up because I’m one of the ones staying, and I don’t find myself described in your Group A. What I find odd is that you too are staying, but I don’t think you’d be very comfortable in Group A either. How useful can a typology be that has no room for you yourself?
Ann: The naive incoherent realism that Lonergan calls “half animal and half human” is the extroversion that thinks that human knowing is a matter of looking out there and seeing what is “already out there now real.” Later he illustrates this with an only half-humorous example of the extroverted stream of consciousness of a kitten.
Lonergan did not agree with Maritain, Gilson, and others about some great “intuition of being” that permits one to reach a knowledge of the real. David Tracy tells me that one day he went to see Lonergan in his room at the Gregorian University. He confessed to Lonergan that he had never had an intuition of being. “Neither have I,” Lonergan replied; “sit down, and let’s talk.”
JAK –
I wasn’t talking about the philosophical systems to which Lonergan wants to apply the description “half animal and half human”. I was talking about the self-contradictory description itself: even if half of something is a human being, then it’s 100% animal.
I don’t see the “I’ve had it” as meaning “I’m leaving.”
I think they need a different type of balm for their souls than the Group A, however. They are in a severe allergic reaction, so to speak. And that’s what prompted my observation–the fact that the strategies that helped one group cope make things worse for the other group. The things that evidently make Bob Imbelli feel better make me feel much worse about the situation. But they used to make me feel better, too.
Oops — should have been: if something is half animal and half human, then it is also 75% animal.
Oops, sorry I missed your point, Ann.
May I suggest that the conversation would be more enlightening and beneficial if instead of imputing to others “denial” or speculating as to what makes them “feel better,” participants were merely to express their own views in direct discourse. This pigeon-holing is growing wearisome.
If I understand it right, I’m in group B (although I’m not leaving). In terms of words giving balm to my soul, Abp Martin of Dublin; Cdl Schoenborn of Vienna; and the pastor of the parish I was visiting last month, have all succeeded to some extent. But I am not sure what their secret is.
Okay Bob. I assume you find your posts of the latest spiritual writings of Pope Benedict XVI edifying–because you post them.
I myself am discouraged and alienated by those writings because they suggest to me that Benedict does not take seriously the crisis in the church, and is content to continue with business as usual.
Does this mean that those seeking redress from the Vatican through civil court could now claim that the Vatican’s canonists failed to follow the church’s own bylaws? Does anyone know if this helps their case?
Good points and don’t want to way lay this but – can the historians shed any light on what happened during the Arian Controversy when it appears most of the lay church (were there bishops also?) held to what we believe today over and against most bishops who now would be seen as heretical?
How did they keep the spirit of faith and the expression of community/church alive?
Just a thought?
The beat goes on.
I think the thread underscores how much we are shaped by our interests and education andd its impact on our lives: literature, philosophy, sociology, psychology. etc. and how it shapes our approaches.
Typological categories continue to function importantly in the world.
I recalled the Myers-Briggs test (based on Jungian psychology) that I went through(several times) on managemen tretreats as a way of helping folks understand and collaborate better.
Maybe it would be useful for some here.
I continue to assert that factors of motivation are deeply important in understanding behavior and in times of “crisis”, as in today’s Church should not be cast aside.
I
Bob – have used and taken the Myers-Brigges often. Properly administered, interpreted, and used by groups, it can shed a great deal of understanding on styles of communication, etc.
But, in the wrong hands, it can be a device to “pigeon-hole”, if I may borrow from Fr. Imbelli.
Have experienced it both ways.
Bob Imbelli: Life IS messy and it is still very hot! Greene and Dickens among others revel in the ambiguity and the mess–but I wouldn’t deny that we can have a mess with just twoness. Great novels simply require more.
DG: “Best of times, worst of times…” What could be less two-ey than that? Sounds like a multiplicity of times to me: best! worst! and everything in between, though I’ll agree that it is “A Tale of Two Cities.” And remember Jarndyce and Jarndyce, apparently two but actually a multiplicity.
Bob Nunz,
You say “The beat goes on” all the time. What does that mean? It sounds like you are saying nobody has said anything worthwhile or new in this discussion. Just same old, same old. Is that how you feel?
It’s Friday afternoon here in CA and I am just checking back in with this blog to see where the discussion has gone since I last posted. WOW!
It occurred to me after I made my last post that there were other very significant ways by which the CDF/Inquisition was able to limit the scope and purview of the US review boards, all of which are not generally known to nor understood by the public.
Levada on his return from consultations in Rome indicated to us (SF review board) that the Inquisition was none-too-happy with the idea that the review boards, as conceived by the “Dallas Charter,” would put laity (especially women) in “supervisory” roles over the actions and behavior of clerics, particularly bishops.
The Inquisition was able to limit under the Charter the review boards’ charge to investigate allegations of sexual abuse and impropriety against PRIESTS ONLY, excluding bishops.
Furthermore, the Charter was quietly amended from its original draft so that review boards would investigate allegations of sexual abuse of priests on MINORS ONLY.
The net effect of these Vatican refinements in the Charter was to give a “free pass” to priests and bishops who had inappropriate sexual relationships with adult men and women, including adults who may be handicapped, impaired or vulnerable to exploitation.
While all priests would be exposed to investigations and potential sanctions for their abusing children, bishops would continue with impunity under the protection of the hierarchy. (For this reason, I can’t imagine why priests still for the most part stand in solidarity with the bishops – you’d think they would have cast their lot with the people by now.)
The Inquisition also rejected the definition of “sexual abuse” used in the original draft of the Charter which employed an expansive definition adopted previously by Canadian bishops with something more confining that required physical touching and penetration to reach the level of “abuse.”
I mention all of these exemptions and restrictions won by the Inquisition to shape, limit and frame the investigations into sexual abuse allegations because they demonstrate the single-minded, relentless and methodical determination of the Vatican curia to out-maneuver any effort to shed the light of day on their complicity and corruption.
“The Inquisition was able to limit under the Charter the review boards’ charge to investigate allegations of sexual abuse and impropriety against PRIESTS ONLY, excluding bishops.”
Jim Jenkins –
This is the worst yet. The absolute pits.
“… during the Arian Controversy when it appears most of the lay church (were there bishops also?) held to what we believe today over and against most bishops who now would be seen as heretical?…”
Yay, Bill deH! You’ve hit on the crux of the matter: can the laity be right when the bishops are wrong?
“
Okay Cathy,
I appreciate the direct discourse. One solution for your agita: when a post appears that cites Pope Benedict, keep on scrolling on the principle: different strokes for different folks. After all, this is a catholic blog … and the beat will most certainly go on.
Peggy writes:
“Jarndyce and Jarndyce, apparently two but actually a multiplicity.”
Indeed, they are legion.
Bob, I’m all for different strokes. And I certainly don’t think you should stop posting what you want.
But I am quite sure a number of people now respond to this sort of literature the way I do- and I think it’s troubling and significant that we do respond this way. I don’t think it’s a good thing.
I think it’s worth thinking out why that’s the case, and what will help them–since I am one of them. You can dismiss, mock, or express pious scorn of me and the New York Times and unsophisticated dualists and binary thinkers and whomever else you want. You are just too cool for school.
It’s not going to change the fact that this wave of the crisis and the Vatican’s response has FUNCTIONALLY brought some people to a new place of darkness in their faith and in their lives as Catholics. And it’s not going to change the fact that some of us judge that it’s necessary to take this existential problem on directly, looking for a different set of resources within the tradition both to understand it and alleviate it.
And what I’ve learned from the past few days on the blog is that it is utterly misguided to look in the direction of people who haven’t hit that functional crisis point for any help in dealing with it.
But you may be able to help Kip. And that would a be a good thing.
Interesting little summary in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this morning about the two sides at Vatican I, the Ultramontanists and the Gallicanists.
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/tim-townsend/article_6c3b37e7-c97e-55ab-9b5a-7065df368540.html
Cathy,
I appreciate paragraphs one, two, and four in your comment above. And I think they could be a point of departure for a worthwhile conversation.
But then you explode paragraph three. “Scorn?” “mock?’ “dismiss?”
To find the NY Times tendentious in this case is a judgment that some share and others do not. That’s where discussion can be interesting — if it’s not dismissed as being in denial.
To find the terms of an analysis unsatisfactory from an analytic point of view is not to dismiss legitimate concerns. It is to find the framing of the situation less than illuminating. That feedback can be weighed by you and either accepted or rejected – but it does not indicate “pious scorn” of your person.
Jean Raber, on another thread wrote: “Certainly, there are lots of examples of my own bad moments on this blog shaping responses of others and creating unintended ripples.”
Perhaps we all need to re-read our comments on this thread to see if the words are applicable to us (whatever our place on the Myers-Briggs indicator). It might even promote that “skin healing” you advocate somewhere above.
Rita, I do think the thread has been quite valuable, bu tmy commen tis that there is also an awful lot of self-justification and talking at here also.
Basta.
“But I am quite sure a number of people now respond to this sort of literature the way I do- and I think it’s troubling and significant that we do respond this way. I don’t think it’s a good thing.”
I would go even further: I think it’s a very sad thing. When even the words that can lead us to Christ are rejected out of hand because the messenger is so ill thought of, I don’t think anyone from Group A, B or any other group in between can help, only the grace of God. The frightening thing is that this can happen to anyone at any time.
Mark, whatever respect I have for papal sermons and documents (and I have a great deal of respect), I don’t consider them words that can lead to Christ per se. Not even the Puritans–who had far more respect for the sermon than we do–would go so far.
Under the best of circumstances, different people will find different and theological spiritual writers edifying and others not so much.
These, of course, are not the best of circumstances.
Even within scripture, I think its perfectly reasonable to find different books and writers who resonate differently with different people.
Prof. Kaveny – you might want to peruse the latest article by Richard Sipe posted on HCRONLINE. He uses a different model from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross (denial, anger, depression, acceptance) borrowed from the organizational development field. He applies this to the current situation in the worldwide church. Very interesting.
Here is one more published article today from a lay professor in Japan (Australian) – it places the whole question about canon law (originial blog) in a much wider context: http://www.catholica.com.au/gc2/occ/048_occ_100710.php
I was sorry (though I understand) the shutting down of the thread on child porn linked with woman’s ordination question above.
Both here and there, the point of Bill D. about the whole role of canon law satrikes me as part of the critical governace (failure) issue deeply affecting Church credibility.
Today, I’m struggling with a bridge problem, not the cards but people and rules and suspensions and appeals in our area.
One of the nice things in bridge rules is the notion that rules don’t solve hard isues, though they may try and that equity and justice needs faiert consideration beyond that.
It strikes me that there is little equity in the processes of canon law and the secrecy not only allowed within law but also attached to various processes such as “visitations”(another Romanita softening semantic) display little sense of equity in process.
Thus i continue to think the duality of civil vs. canon law is important, granted there are many imperfections on the civil side.
In bridge there is always plentiful iterature striving to improve legalisms.
Civil law has continually critiqued its processes to improve equity.
I think canon law and the CDF is still focused on the “institutuion” and its rights and perogatives, not unlike the attorney for the head of a corporation or a government executive.
Cathleen–
I understand if you think it best to delete this comment as being inappropriate for this forum, but I can’t help but get the feeling that you are hiding, and not from me. You’ve made several heartfelt comments lamenting the fact that a large group of people feels disconnected from the Church because of the abuse scandal, and that another large group of people is not saying anything that resonates with them. And that the Vicar of Christ, whose words you once found edifying (and which, let’s face it, CAN lead one to Christ, “per se” or otherwise), you now find alienating and discouraging. And I think you are right that many other people feel as you do. So why the whole “ain’t no big thang ‘cos there are other scribes in the sea” tone of your last comment? If it’s that simple, and I don’t think it is, why the lament? And if the words of a pope can’t even lead one to Christ to begin with, what’s the big deal if some people find that this particular pope no longer speaks to them?
Anyway, I know you are diligent about responding to comments directed to you and I do not want to burden you with having to check in here to see if anything needs to be responded to/corrected/deleted, so I promise this will be my last comment to you on this thread.
Are y’all drinking together somewhere? And making this all up?
Hah! If we were drinking together, this is what we’d sound like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCbuRA_D3KU
Mark two things: 1) No Catholic has to find any particular person’s writings edifying in order to be Catholic. Not even the pope’s. And all this attention to each and every talk on the part of the Catholic press and the people in the pews is new. 2) That said, I am not upset with the substance of what he says–it’s his saying them here and now that bothers me. I really like TS Eliot’s The Wasteland, but if my father insisted on read the poem while the kitchen was burning down I’d be really annoyed at the reading–not the substance of the thing read.
Bob Nunz, thanks for your response. I am glad you found something of value in all this discussion. Yes, I see now what you mean.
As, since that time, Bob Imbelli has joined you in invoking “the beat goes on,” I thought it timely to introduce the ur-text (with music).
http://s0.ilike.com/play#Sonny+%26+Cher:The+Beat+Goes+On:35724:s2739.27594.1415.0.1.5%2Cstd_bf9674dc8e8b086bda9133850d11e119
Can this possibly be the longest running conversation on dotCommonweal to date?
While the score-keepers are checking on that, Jimmy, would we agree that maybe the blogosphere should issue cranial ice-packs when the temperature goes over 85 degrees?
While this blog thread goes on and on about whether there is more than Group A and B types the NYT strikes again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/world/europe/13belgium.html?hp
My read is that in The Belgium church there will be just one Group….all going down the depression sliding shoot…. hopefully holding hands. I also have concluded that there is only one, one, one Group who cover-up ; … progressive/liberal or conservative/traditional forgettaboutit …The ONE GROUP, all, have signed up as lifers. all are in one group .. no binary needed there.
A stomach-turning article. The art created by the poor victim? Danneels’s soft ringed hand in the picture? Etc.
Will predict that the earlier stories quoting Adriaenssens – that they were set up and used as bait” will change. Yes, they were set up and used by bait but by Daneels and the bishops. My guess is that 50+ cases were withheld from Adriaenssens and his committee and that indirectly they were misled on this. (would we say – cover-up)
Again, Adriaenssens was relatively new to this position; his predecessor is one of those who came forward to civil authorities because of their concerns about “hidden” information.
Speaking of dichotomies and dualities – I’m an inveterate classifier myself. And it’s occurred to me that there are at least five discrete types of problems and offenses in this phenomenon that we roll up under the umbrella term “abuse crisis”
1. The original abuse – to my mind, still the worst of all the evils. Almost always, in these public cases, perpetrated by a priest.
2. Transfer the problem away – rather than removing the offender from ministry, the local bishop and his subordinates move him from one parish to another, perhaps punctuated by interludes of treatment/therapy
3. Sins/crimes in the course of adjudicating complaints – When a victim pursues a formal complaint, this one covers everything from the local biishop and his attorneys intimidating victims to the Vatican apparently sitting on cases referred to them
4. Defective/faulty norms and laws, at local, state, national and universal levels, for dealing with these problems. Cf the Lacrosse diocese
5. Lack of accountability among bishops and bureaucrats for #2-4 above. This seems to be the most infected wound today.
So what do we make of the NY Times article referenced by Ed Gleason on 7/13, 2:02 pm? According to my five-part framework, it’s a #1. A bishop abused his nephew. As Gerelyn says, stomach-turning. What does it do to advance the story, or help us understand what is going on in the church today, or lead us to resolution of these problems? I’d have to say, ‘probably not much’. It’s a sensational story that may not add much to the story.
Admittedly, I reached the point of emotional exhaustion a long time ago. Piling one more anecdote atop the mountain of others doesn’t restoke the furnaces for me. It just makes me say, ‘Yes, yes – I know, I know.’
Jim – the information about this bishop’s resignation and the reasons why (abusing his nephew) are old history. What is not clear -
1) in addition to his nephew, there are allegations of others who were abused
2) the abuse of the nephew appears to have been known by Daneels for years
3) Daneels apparently took no action on this information (why? unclear – nephew and family did not want this to be public; Daneels consulted with a small group and handled this like many other cases we have seen historically; Daneels hid this information?)
4) what is different about this situation is that Daneels was over this conference; knew about the abuse; and that the abuser was a bishop who was left in his position for years
5) given the extreme duress Belgium endured during the Durcoux rapes, murders, kidnappings, Daneels had to have been aware of the changing attitudes; criminal statutes, etc.
6) this is not one isolated case – it is an example that forced the Belgium church to set up a committee so abused could come forward – within months, more than 250 cases.
7) what is unknown but appears to be at the heart of this scandal is that 50 or more cases had been known by Daneels and others for years; had been pushed by outside folks both judicial, clerical, lay – and yet, these 50+ cases remained secret even to the latest commission head.
So, don’t agree that this is sensationalism for its sake only….it is closer to an attempt to find out truth and establish justice for victims who have had their voices suppressed for years.
It seems I was not clear in my post. both ‘conservative/traditionalists and liberal/progressive hierarchs ALL covered up to the same degree. no heroes on either side?
deal with that.
I wonder how much of the “father-son” relationship between bishops and their priests had to do with a willingness of bishops to forgive over and over what to the rest of us was an egregious abuse of priestly status and power? Do fathers disown their sons easily? I don’t think so. Do sons abuse fathers’ trust and love? Often.
Is it time for a different model of the relationship between bishop/community superior and priest?