Speaking of rehabbed bishops…
In light of the earlier post on the two rehabilitated Irish bishops, it might be tempting to view the Vatican and Catholic upper management as uniquely benighted.
But the other day the Episcopal Church announced that a bishop, Charles Bennison of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, had been restored to office by an appeals court that overturned two charges that in 2008 had led to his deposition. Bennison was convicted for failing to act in the 1970s on information that his brother, while youth minister at his parish, was sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl in the congregation.
The appeals panel overturned one charge and ruled that the 10-year statute of limitations had run out on the other.
Bennison, 66, says he feels vindicated and after a nearly three-year hiatus from office he plans to return to lead the diocese until the mandatory retirement age of 72.
I wrote about the episode at PoliticsDaily, and it is a case with some complexities, as Bennison was already deeply unpopular with many clergy and laity in the diocese for reasons ranging from poor financial decisions to crackdowns on conservatives. He feels that was behind the initial trial, though even the appeals court thought Bennison was “totally wrong” on the second charge and was guilty of “conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy” but was spared by the SOL. (It’s an interesting charge; I don’t know of an analogous law in the Catholic code).
In any case, reaction has been much like that of Catholics to the Walsh/Field decision. So even different processes, with explanations, don’t always make for justice, or popularity.
It would be nice to see a Catholic canon law provision dealing with “conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy” — but only if it were written by a committee of laypeople.
It’s interesting that there are others who are as “benighted”. After the August 12th blog, I am still confused. How is Benedict XVI viewed by most Catholics? Is he incompetent as an administrator? Is he uncharitable? Is he a good theologian? Is he a good priest? Is he a grave sinner? How do most of the Commonweal bloggers view him? Would a Council help?
He’s an academic out of his realm of expertise.
A Council of the current crop of bishops/archbishops/cardinals would be so packed with JPII/BXVI types that the outcome would almost be a foregone conclusion.
And don’t talk to me about the Holy Spirit. She has been AWOL for years now.
BXVI is incapable of governance, an incompetent leader who makes excuses for himself and the incompetent bishops he is supposed to be leading. He is indifferent to the anguish of the church—he wants it over so he can continue on his narrowly construed way.
“This is just what shrewd and corrupt church officials do–relentlessly fighting, exploiting every possible legal maneuver, to cling to their precious power, even when their wrong-doing has been so clearly proven.”–Barbara Dorrit of SNAP
I think “power” is the operative word there. Some people in power begin to feel they’re above common decency, whether they seek out individuals to use for sex, or whether others are attracted to their power and they take advantage of it.
In fact, take the word “church” out, and that statement would cover Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Henry Hyde as well as Bennison (what an inappropriate name despite the fact that it’s got two n’s).
I’m only wondering what the Episcopal Church court was thinking when it allowed reinstatement of Bennison. Perhaps there’s a statute of limitations in secular courts, but ought there be an SOL on sin in a church court?
Re Pope Benedict, Jason Berry, David Gibson’s confrere over at PD, got it about right in his “What Pope Benedict Must Do” March: “Ironically, for all the bad press he is getting, Benedict has done more to confront the abuse crisis than anyone else in the Vatican. But he must choose between governing and upholding his theological vision as a moral absolutist.”
His thoughtful essay is here: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/30/what-pope-benedict-must-do/
Jimmy Mac: The Holy Spirit is not AWOL as long as Catholics have eyes to see and ears to hear that something is wrong and open their mouths to say so.
Jean is right -the issue centers (unfortunately) on power.
In our Church, I think the issue has been exacerbated by:
-maximal magisterialism (accept everything hierrachy says)
-sacralization of canon law (“rules and regs are everything”)
-Romanita ( the way Rome does business (“smoothly”.)
While the Church and Churches will move on and evolve, with RCC becoming more brown and a more flexible but faithful young group coming along in the laity, many are hurt and dismayed in this interim, which will go on for some time.
The impact of how much that anguish influences the time to come, despite the broad demographics, is a critical issue.
That’s why i think BXVI is a tragic figure, compared to what he might have done to be a uniter.
“That’s why i think BXVI is a tragic figure, compared to what he might have done to be a uniter.”
Perhaps is premature to speak of Pope Benedict in past tense. He’s not gone yet. He seems to be in relatively good health mentally and physically. Even old men can surprise you.
Jean,
Why do I think BXVI is unlikely to surprise me in the positive way you infer? To date his surprises have been predominately negative, the most dominant of which is his monumental inability to anticipate negative reaction to his decisions or pronouncements.
I didn’t say it wasn’t unlikely, just possible.
I find it unlikely that my neighbor’s dogs will ever learn to behave. I find it unlikely that Raber will stop stashing sugar donuts and other contraband out in his truck. I find it unlikely that the Cubbies will ever win a World Series. I find it unlikely that AT&T will ever fix the static on my phone line before I blow a clot griping about it. I find it unlikely that Obama will have enough sense to get out of Afghanistan. I find the resurrection of the dead and the promise of eternal life unlikely.
But it’s the hope of possibility that gets you through, eh?
Is it B16′s “– monumental inability to anticipate negative reaction to his decisions or pronouncements” or a simple lack of concern about that reaction? He is allegedly the Vicar of Christ on Earth, so why should he care about reactions? Absolute Monarchy is just that – absolute.
And those donuts ARE Tim Horton’s, my Friend to the North, just so we’re clear on whom to blame for that blood sugar count :-)
From Irish Times Friday August 27
Madam, – Paddy Agnew (“Support for archbishop belies way he has been written off at home”, Home News August 25th) fails to mention that the support for the archbishop comes from the group AGM of Communion and Liberation (CL), with whom the Archbishop has had a long association going back many years. It is akin to saying that a Fianna Fáil minister got great support at a Fianna Fáil ard fheis; hardly surprising.
Mr Agnew then tells us that “church observers” – whoever they are – this week have emphasised that the reinstatement of the two Dublin bishops by the Pope in “no way represents a vote of no confidence in Archbishop Martin”.
Really? Why then did Archbishop Martin not make himself available to the Irish media to say as much and answer legitimate questions arising from the resignations? Instead he chose to mention the resignations as a three-line afterthought in a three- page letter released only to clergy, in August, when evidence suggests that the decision was made by the Vatican months before?
Having announced the resignations on Christmas Eve last, surely the now reinstated bishops deserved an equally public announcement, yet the archbishop went on holidays, not even telling his brother bishops about the Vatican decision. And finally, why did the Vatican not announce the decision with a note of support for Archbishop Martin knowing quite well that the decision would be seen as a rebuke to the archbishop? The numbers for the “church observers” line just don’t stack up.
We are also told by Mr Agnew in his news article “Primate criticises poor quality of debate”, with no hint of irony, that Archbishop Martin speaking to crowds of CL members in Italy, complained about the low bar in Catholic intellectual debate in Ireland.
How can we Catholics have a quality debate when our archbishop, who has dismissed the democratic notion of a diocesan synod, regularly engages in megaphone criticisms of his priests, his own youth ministry, the Catholic press, his fellow bishops; refuses to name alleged “strong forces” at work in the church and leaves the country refusing interviews rather than allow any intelligent questioning of himself or his current policies and strategic direction for the Dublin Diocese.
President McAleese rightly praised Archbishop Martin for his leadership in dealing with child sexual abuse. The church is moving on and so must Archbishop Martin’s style of leadership which seems implacably wedded to the easy soundbite and stubbornly refuses to open itself to legitimate scrutiny, which all others in public life now accept as necessary in a modern society. – Yours, etc,
GARRY O’SULLIVAN,
Editor,
The Irish Catholic,
Bluebell, Dublin 12.