Benedict and the bishops

Rod, you relay an elemental truth in these words from Phil Lawler:

The bishops made a fool's bargain. They were prepared to sacrifice the essential elements of the Catholic faith: the moral teaching, the clerical discipline, even the loving care for the faithful. In return, they hoped to prop up the prestige of the institutional Church.

The bishops were not just "prepared” to sacrifice. That's exactly what they did, sacrificing justice and charity to their flock on the altar of the church. They upheld their own pride of office against the claims of abuse victims.

Not all claims are valid, but enough are. And the biggest failure is not individual pedophiles, it is an institution of God that did not put its flock ahead of itself.

And, as an after-note, I am sick and tired of hearing that priests have about the same proportion of pedophiles as the general population (even assuming that this is true). Are not those who claim to be God's intercessors here on earth to be held to a higher standard?

My guess is that most of the bishops who were malfeasient or negligent on this point are either already retired or facing retirement very soon. Most of the scandal stuff seems to be from the 60's and 70's, and there seems to be an evolution after this in most places.

Cardinal Mahoney should probably be removed now. He is now 72 and is due for normal retirement in 3 years and this can not come too soon.

Pope Benedict will obviously not have his activity directed to by the media, and that is more or less a good thing. All media people, both sympathetic like Rod and not so sympathetic will have to accept that.

"There isn't even any point in making fun of it any more."

This is exactly how I generally feel about your comments, Charles--but then, there's little sport in shooting fish in a barrel.

Hi Charles:

I want to state up front that have always been a Catholic, am now at this moment a Catholic, and will die a Catholic, and would do it an infinite times over. With that stated I would like to pose a hypothetical to you.

Since the Catholic Church doesn't have the cultural influence any longer that it once had, and thus there is not point to make fun of it anymore, implys that you made fun of it in the recent past. Of course, you have the right to make fun of the Catholic Church or any other thing (e.g., religion) for that matter. So this leads me to my next question,

Why don't you be bold and make fun of Islam tought guy?

Why don't you be bold and make fun of Islam tought guy?

Why don't you sign your name to your post, tough guy?

(But, to answer your question to Charles: Islam is its own mockery. You don't have to make fun of someone who looks and acts like a combination of Al Goldstein, Joseph Stalin, and Soupy Sales.)

Ok I'm going out on a limb on this one. So I'm going to stay anon.
But if you want to see a true message that the dark side does NOT want to come out. Just check out the Youtube video of Mike Gauvreau on Phil's book blog.

This could easily be dismissed as technical difficulties. But just LOOK at it. If you've ever seen the confusion of the forces of evil this will say something to you. Demonic interplay is not just a crazy idea from an old movie. It happens. It's almost impossible to watch or follow. The last line must be very important. Some of the Bishop's do not have the Holy Spirit. But God is bigger than any of these problems. Jesus won the victory. Remember?

Just think, why is that message being so obfuscated? Spun and twisted. Right before the Pope's mass in Washington, DC. Maybe it's to prevent the people of God from sincerely praying for a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit onto those Bishops all gathered together in one place. A new Pentecost.

Hopefully someone can get the original version back on line.

Actually, some of us who have come into the Roman Catholic Church since the clerical abuse scandal (my husband and I were received on 3/22/08) also wonder why our beloved Pope Benedict XVI - and all Vatican officials- have refused to even answer the invitations of SNAP and other groups representing victims of priestly sexual abuse.
I am heartened by the Holy Father's most personal words yesterday- that the Church is 'deeply ashamed' that this betrayal happened. And I wish he, or one of his most trusted advisors, would brave the humiliating consequences of meeting with these victims in person.
It is the right thing to do....whatever the cost in public-relations nonsense from the media.
I am troubled that the Holy Father has not yet responded, even negatively, to such invitations.

At least one good thing came out of all this. The Catholic Church is at its lowest level in cultural influence in the US since the mid 1800s. There isn't even any point in making fun of it any more.

I think you're right about the decline in cultural influence, but I think it is a catastrophe. America needs a strong Catholic church. Read Phil's book (well, not you Charles). Phil's an orthodox Catholic and a very thoughtful commentator.

I have no idea why my post appeared in such glorious erubescence but I suspect it has something to do with the link to the Boston Globe article. In any event the link doesn't work.

Actually, the color on my screen is more a cardinalitial porporato .....

America needs a strong Catholic church.

I find this remark curious. In what way does America "need" a Catholic church of any level of cultural influence? And what is an Orthodox Christian doing saying this, considering the heretical nature of the Catholic church according to Orthodox ecclesiology?

To the poster who responded to me, who was not Charles. Some thoughts, this is Rod's blog, and I often come by to read some of the forums here. However, I don't comment on "everything" that Rod posts here. So my questions are for both Rod and Mr. Cosimano 1) Why does Rod, who was a Protestant, then Catholic, and now Orthodox, keep writing about Catholicism? Seriously, Rod, I mean you have left the Catholic Church and moved on. I so no need for you to continue blogging about a faith you have rejected. 2) Mr. Cosimano, as somone who is not Catholic, why is it that every time I come here and see a blog about Catholicism, you are always involved. There are many groups out there that I do not belong too and thus I have no desire to get into discussions say about Morminism, Islam, Buddism, etc, since I don't belong to those faiths, nor do I ever want to belong to them. So Mr. Cosimano, you don't like the Catholic Church, that is you right. So why do you constantly get involved with posts about it. That seems a little contradictory. I think you would do better, for your own mental health and sanity, to write about things that make you happy.

Finally, to the fellow who said "why don't I sign my real name". Two points 1), My question was not directed at you, so in best Sicilian-Italian accent, with a littl bit of South Louisiana, "Who asked you?" 2) I am intellectually honest enough to admit that publicy criticizing Islam could get me killed. So, while I would die fighting the "Mohamadens" if it came to that, I don't see any need to riducle them in public just for the fun of it.

Pax Domine Christi

Roland, I was aware of the anathemas being revoked, and I'm familiar with the "two-lungs" theory of the RCC, but I'm quite certain I've read numerous references by (contemporary) Orthodox priests and theologians to various Catholic dogmas, doctrines, and practices as "heretical" -- the Immaculate Conception comes to mind, though I'd have to find the articles I read in college to verify that.

Can the RCC hold heretical doctrines and not be heretical as an institution according to Orthodox theology?

(I'm not asking to be annoying, I'm really curious about this)

Allen beat me to the punch. I think it's more basic than the Immaculate Conception -- according to an Orthodox friend of mine, the Orthodox Church doesn't accept the entire Catholic theology of original sin, which underlies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

I'm reminded of a comment that Rod himself once made, to the effect that the Catholic/Orthodox divide looks a lot wider from the Orthodox side than from the Catholic side.

An Orthodox deacon of my acquaintance told me not too long ago that for most serious Orthodox theologians, the *filioque* is just simply not a serious issue anymore. There are more serious, more substantial issues.

why has Pope Benedict refused to respond to, if not to meet with, victims of clerical/cover-up abuse here in the US, whether represented by groups such as SNAP or by any group at all that has written to the Holy See.

Because the abuse scandal is the Vatican's deepest shame over the last two or three decades and it doesn't see a graceful way of bringing resolution. It was a failure at all levels.

Here is a story that ran in the "Protesant magazine Christianity Today." The readers digest version was posted on their website at www.Christianitytoday.com/childrenministry/articles/sexualabuseinthechurch.html.

I will post section from that article, which is as follows:

"In the last three years, an average of 23 new articles each day have appeared in secular media sources revealing sexual abuse allegations arising in Protesant churches in the United States. Protestant denominations have been tempted to call sexual abuse a "Catholic Problem"; this is simply not true."

So I have some questions, perhaps some of you more intelectually superior folks who are not a poor ole stupid Catholic of Sicilian ancestry and from Louisiana can help me out.

1) If these stories are running in the print press across the country, why have CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and even Fox news (who I am a fan of), not covered this story with same zeal?

2)Why do non-Catholics use "the sexual abuse" crisis to attack the Catholic Church, when, based on this Protestant magazine article, I calcuate that there have been 25,185 sexual abuse allegations (23*365*3) in the various Protestant churches over the last 3 years.

So conjecture on my part, 1) The Catholic Church gets attacked simply because it is the "Catholic Church". Philosophically, I believe in the reality of Satan and he knows where the "real McCoy" is, and that is the "Catholic Church, 2) Secular-humanist, who are motivated by the false spirit of the age, also aim at the Catholic Church as well as the Papacy is an Institution that is not subject to their secular leftist agenda and fights them across the globe as they try and push miltant secular relativism on the world. 3) As for why non-Catholic Christians always post about the Sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, you all will have to answer that one for yourself.

However, I don't see a sense of wanting to do what is right for those victims, I see in "some cases", not all, the use by non-Catholic Christians, a similar tactic employed by the milatant secularist, in that attacking and weakening the Catholic Church, will better allow for Protestant Churches to make their case as to why "we heathen Catholics" shoud live the Catholic Church and join one of the "many Protestant churches (I don't know how many there are these days)"

My Catholic faith is in the Holy Trinity, and what the Catholic Church professes with respect to Faith and morals. So, if I believe that to be true, it would be totally "stupid and irrational" for me to give my Catholic Faith because of the sinfulness of some of its Priests and Bishops. I mean really, do I give up on the United States because we have allowed 45 million unborn to be slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers since Roe V. Wade (1973). I mean, really.

Sorry for the long post, but this Catholic bashing really gets old. I often go to Titusone, which is a traditional Anglican blog. However, I don't go over there to ridicule what is going on in the Anglican Church. There are many faithful Christians in that Church and many Anglicans are faced with decisions about where to go, and many have reconciled to Rome. Still, I don't go there an attack some of theological nonsense when I visit there because that would be uncvil, and it is there board. For the record, I think it is uncivil to to these types of things. If someone comes to a Catholic board, then I may behave differently.

So to the non-Catholic posters here, why is it that the Catholic Church gets so much attention from you all?

Just FYI, the post citing Christianity Today was mine.

Sorry

Traditionally "top-down" reforms have often been difficult in the Church and done more in extreme cases. (Historically speaking this scandal is not extreme in the way the Reformation was)

In times past Popes were sometimes attacked or killed for going after bishops or Cardinals. This hasn't been true for centuries, but the possibility for unpleasant side-effects is fairly high. Even removing priests can lead to schisms, removing bishops or Cardinals can entail much more. A major Catholic crack-up with Bishops attacking Pope(s) might be fun for ex-Catholic observers, but there's some logic in treading lightly.

If the mandatory age of retirement were lowered to 65 for all presently bishops, would that help?

SusanF,

Another point that I should have made is that the pope's first office is the bishop of Rome. The responsibility for dealing with local ecclesiastical matters rests with the local ordinary. In Boston at least, I think I remember reading that, in addition to settling the monetary claims, Law's successor O'Malley met with victims on several occasions. As ThomasR rightly points out, the episcopate is a collegial organization and it is not the historical custom for one bishop to intervene in another's jurisdiction. That said, I agree with you that it would not be a bad idea for Benedict to attempt to embrace the victims.

On a similar note, following up on David J. White's interesting point, there are more substantial issues facing Orthodox and Catholics: namely, the papal claims and the issue of infallibility. This is a jurisdictional issue that the Orthodox are very sensitive to; Benedict has abrogated the title of "Patriarch of the West" in an attempt to assuage just such Orthodox trepidations. The push since the V2 council is towards "collegiality" among the bishops.

Hence, perhaps, a reluctance to exercise uninvited, if nonetheless benignly pastoral, intervention among the local dioceses.

Reaganite in NYC,
I don't hear any gnashing of teeth in my very orthodox VA parish (Arlington VA diocese) either. We hear 'pro-life' messages every week. I'm glad to support those calls, and I tell ya'll this because it seems to be a surprise to some.
But I am allowed to, and can, and do, ask questions about why the Holy See won't give the courtesy of ANY response to clergy-abuse victims.
Please try to address my question rather than point us in the direction of Albuquerque...

SusanF:

Re: your 5:38 pm posting, I appreciate that you've given this a lot of thought. Have you discussed this with anyone in your parish (the pastor, any of the staff, the lay leaders, the Parish Council)? Or anyone in your diocese (Diocese of Arlington)? Have you discussed your idea with the SNAP people. You might start there.

Not sure what you mean by hearing "pro-life" messages every week. Every week? Do you mean that this is preached every week from the pulpit at Sunday Mass? Or do you meant that there is a pro-life committee in your parish that posts short blurbs in your church bulletin ... or notices of upcoming actvities on a bulletin board. If these are volunteers responding to a call from within, who can fault them for working on behalf of a culture of life?

Don't understand your reference to Albuquerque.

Have you considered the questions I posed in my earlier post addressed to you? If we are truly sincere about this, we must ask how any "meeting" with the Holy Father could be constructed so as to avoid turning it into a media circus? What good would that do any of the victims?

SusanF, I'm honestly not sure how such a visit would even be arranged, logistically. It would be easier in some sense for the victims to meet with His Holiness in Rome than for him to arrange a meeting here, given the security and other requirements of such a meeting, wouldn't it?

As far as the Scandal goes, here's the thing.

I'm aware that the current template for the discussion of the Scandal is that it was, and is, the bishops' fault. I'm also aware that there is more than a little truth to that, that some bishops certainly contributed heavily to the problem by constantly reassigning those priests credibly accused of abuse to other areas of ministry, and that it's very logical to conclude that the bishops in question were aware of the credible allegations and chose to overlook them in reassigning the priests in question (though whether this was done with malice or with any specific agenda requires speculation on matters I'm not qualified to discuss).

What I'm not aware of is that there is any proof of this--none that would hold up in either a court of secular law or in a church court (in which any accused bishop would be entitled to request a trial).

I also can't say, of my own certain knowledge, that any particular *current* bishop did indeed knowingly and with a dereliction toward the faithful in his diocese move abuser-priests to positions from which it was possible for them to continue to prey on children. Some people have been privy to credible stories, but even these stories are not evidence as the law would understand it. While this is undoubtedly a source of frustration and pain for many, the fact remains that the provision "innocent until proven guilty" is not merely true in secular law.

So to expect Pope Benedict XVI to sweep in and start "firing" bishops left and right is to misunderstand the Church rather a lot. The bishops, however much they may deserve the comparison, are not merely muddling and inept middle managers whose actions placed the "company" in a very bad situation; they are, by virtue of their office, the successors of the Apostles. As I understand it, removing them against their wills requires the ability to demonstrate proof that they have committed wrong--not allegations, not he said/she said scenarios, but proof.

Bear in mind that it has been extremely difficult for secular prosecutors to gather the required level of evidence to go after the priest-abusers themselves, let alone the various bishops who are credibly suspected of having been guilty at the very least of gross negligence, and the problem begins to be understood as it really is, and not as our emotional reactions to it would have it be. What is difficult for secular prosecutors will be at least equally difficult for those operating under the principles of canon law.

All of this may make it seem that I'm too ready to excuse the bishops, or to dismiss the victims, but neither one is true. I have deep sympathy for anyone abused by a priest, and I've never much liked many of our current crop of bishops (who, thankfully, continue to age toward retirement). But to insist that the Church ought to abandon the principles of the law and to "fire" bishops in the absence of proof of wrongdoing is to insist that the Church go on a witch hunt--and we all know how those are likely to turn out.

Pope Benedict XVI will meet today in Washington with the US bishops. I'm a supporter of this pope, and regret that he hasn't taken a more reformist attitude toward holding the bishops themselves accountable for the sex abuse scandal.

You're assuming that Rome's assessment of its American church and its long term problems and prospects fits the American Culture War paradigm.

I'm inclined to think that the Vatican has decided on a two tier strategy in general, with a very conservative "inner" Church defended to the last and an obedient pragmatic "outer" Church that will expand, contract, celebrate, suffer, fray, and recohere over time.

John E:

Thanks for your thoughtful and charitable post. It would be nice if non-Catholic Christians, as well as other agnostics, would post in the manner which you did. The irony in all this is you an agnostic have demonstrated "Christian Charity" better than many on this forum when discussing Catholic issues and for that you have my gratitude and admiration.

Cheers and thanks again,

All this is just rehashing the old. Pope Benedict will make efforts at the seminary level, enforcing seminary admission policy. That is most of it and this the best.

As far as the bishop removal thing, bishops retire at 75 and I am sure many of not most who had any meaningful involvement in the issue are already gone.

If you want dramatic action by the Vatican you will be disappointed. As Americans we like to have lightening bolt action on some or any problem but the Church does not work like that.

"So to the non-Catholic posters here, why is it that the Catholic Church gets so much attention from you all?"

Probably for the same reason that Orthodox Judaism gets so much attention from the non-Orthodox on various Jewish blogs I also frequent.

Another possibility is that many of the posters here are not merely non-Catholic but EX-Catholic.

1) Why does Rod, who was a Protestant, then Catholic, and now Orthodox, keep writing about Catholicism? Seriously, Rod, I mean you have left the Catholic Church and moved on. I so no need for you to continue blogging about a faith you have rejected.

That's pretty weak. Do you really believe non-Catholics are not allowed to notice and comment on Catholic matters? When I blog things in praise of Benedict, which is almost always what I blog about him, why don't I see Catholics coming onto this blog to tell me to butt out?

The fact is, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church in the world. If it's not healthy, then all Christians are in trouble. The Protestant fundamentalists, and perhaps some Orthodox, would disagree, but this culture needs a strong, vibrant Catholicism to witness to it and inform it. That's what I would like to see, anyway.

But even if I didn't, so what? What the Pope does is major news, because he's the Pope. I'm in the business of commenting on news, and I'm esp drawn to religion news.
---
Reaganite, I think Benedict is a brilliant and holy man, and one of the few leaders in the West who understands the situation we're now in. I was thrilled when he was elected Pope, and hope God grants him many years. I took my name in Orthodoxy, Benedict, in honor of St. Benedict of Nursia, but also him.

>>>
Cheers and thanks again,
Posted by: St. Domenic | April 16, 2008 6:27 PM
>>>

Aw, shucks, that's awfully nice of you to say all that stuff...

I had another thought about your original question - why the Catholic Church gets all the press - I think it has to do with several sort of related points - the hierarchical structure and the cover-up aspect - and also the RCC's historical prominence and claims vs. those of Protestant churches.

Let's look at the last point first - on my daily commute, I pass a building labeled "Scott's Temple". I know nothing about the place, never heard of them, no idea what their doctrine is. If I read in the paper - and I stress that I in no way suggest that this is the case - that the pastor at Scott's Temple had been behaving inappropriately with the children there, it wouldn't be all that much of a shock or surprise because, after all, who the heck is Scott anyway? For all I know, he is just some guy who started preaching to his neighbors.

But the Roman Catholic Church is another entity altogether, one that has been around for a couple of thousand years and claims to be God's ordinary means of salvation to all humankind. The humblest Roman Catholic Priest can credibly claim a connection to the Apostles and also claims to transform bread and wine into the body and blood of the Savior of Mankind. Well, inappropriate behavior on the part of someone like that is viewed differently because the claims made by the RCC for the RCC are different than the claims made by the Protestant pastor about his church. For better or worse, one expects more out of the RCC Priest.

Now the first point - the hierarchy and the cover-up. A cover-up always gets judged more harshly because it shows that the organization's concern is for the organization's well-being and not the well being of those the organization is supposedly serving.

It also does not help matters at all that the RCC has plenty of historical baggage. There have been eras in history during which the Popes and Cardinals did not lead exemplary lives. Even today, the higher levels of the hierarchy, Bishops, Cardinals, etc., typically live a much more comfortable lifestyle than do those of the typical member of the laity.

For those of us outside the Church, it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that the organizational structure of the Church exists, in part, to protect the members of that organization from secular authority. When offending Priests are relocated to other jurisdictions, instead of being turned over to civil authorities, that idea is reinforced.

The Protestant denominations don't typically have that sort of globe spanning organization, or teams of lawyers to fight investigations into offenders.

All for now, but that is the general thrust of my answer to your question.

Rod:

I enjoy your blog as I am a Louisiana native, and you as a Louisiana native "living in exile", have a great perspective on some of the great cultural history of our state, as well as some its political failures throughout its history. I enjoy reading your commentary about the great cultural diversity and natural resources that this state has, yet how political cronism has resulted in a state that has never reached what it shoud have. Hopefully, Mr. Jindal, who I am a great supporter of, is on his way to turning that around.

I never stated that you did not have the right to "comment about the Catholic Church", as it is 1) Your blog and you have the 1st amendment right to do it, 2) You are a journalist and you have the right as a journalist to decide what stories you deem relevant to cover in your blog. My question was "Why do you do it, which you answered.

Still, I have yet to see, other than a few folks, any comments on the Christianity Today article (Protestant source) about the "sexual abuse" issues facing Protestant Congregations and as I pointed out, the article states that over 25,000 allegations have been made over the last 3 year period, yet one gets the idea that it is only the Catholic Church dealing with this issue.

As other Catholics have stated, this issue is something that will get addressed but not in the "U.S. mindsight" of within a time frame consistent with our "sound bite mentality". Pope Benedict once stated on an EWTN interview, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, that the "new evangelization and springtime" Pope John Paul II talked about meant from his perspective, that the Catholic Church will not immediately see drastic conversions in terms of numbers to Catholicism in the short term. From then Cardinal Ratzinger's view, the Catholic Church will have a more "committed group of followers", perhaps smaller, but these committed communities (new monastic movements, lay groups like COmmunion and Liberation, which influenced Magdi Allams conversion, orthodox Dioceses in certain areas) will result in a faith that is more vibrant, and like the Benedictines of the 5th century, the light of Christ and the Truths of Catholicism" will shine more clearly and draw people in as it has in the past. This may happen 100 years from now, but the seeds have been planted by John Paul II, of blessed memory, and are contiuning with Pope Benedict.

God Bless, Regards and Viva Papa Benedict

I followed Rod's link and read the entire first chapter of Lawler's book.

I have nothing good to say about Boston's Cardinals, and I fully agree with most of what Phil Lawler writes. But there is one thing he says that is both grossly misleading and utterly unfair, and it's a point that needs to be addressed and refuted.

Cardinal Medeiros did NOT urge Catholic parents to keep their children out of parochial schools! What he DID say was that Catholic parents who'd been sending their kids to public schools for years should not suddenly, conveniently "get religion" because those public schools were being inegrated.

Cardinal Medeiros was not discouraging religious parents from sending their children to local parochial schools in order to give them a solid grounding in the faith. He was merely trying to prevent Catholic schools from becoming a safe haven for racists. He did not want Boston's Catholic schools to become the equivalent of the lily white "Christian Academies" that bigoted parents in the South established once busing became widespread.

That was one of the rare times, in my opinion, when Medeiros acted honorably. People who'd never before seen a need to give their children a religious education should NOT be welcomed with open arms the moment they learn that their children will have black classmates.

Goodguyex: "As far as the bishop removal thing, bishops retire at 75 and I am sure many of not most who had any meaningful involvement in the issue are already gone.

If you want dramatic action by the Vatican you will be disappointed. As Americans we like to have lightening bolt action on some or any problem but the Church does not work like that."

I guess you don't live in Metropolitan Los Angeles. Mahony has wrecked the Church out here. He has placed archdiocesan ministries in jeopardy due in no small manner to the clerical sex-abuse crisis. His priests hate him (and, no, I'm not a priest). Many faithful Catholics out here hold him in contempt. If those aren't reasons for "lighting-bolt action," then, praytell, what are?

If "the Church does not work like that," perhaps it should. Perhaps it should mean what it says and not only stop protecting those who have misused authority in God's name, but throw them out of their offices. If the Church is more loyal to its institutional sense of itself than to Christ and His demands, then it commits idolatry and deserves to be judged.