The Pope can't be kicked out of the Catholic Church. Nor is there any way to force him to resign. It's not even clear that he could resign, since no one has the authority to accept his resignation.
Yet many have pondered and some have "demanded" that Benedict XVI resign his office for mishandling the Church's response to the "sex abuse" or "pedophilia" issue and scandal that is nearly worldwide now. The question is, how do ordinary Catholic people feel about all this?
On May 5th, the National Catholic Reporter released results on a few key issues found in a Zogby Poll which was to be released May 6th. The NCR reported on results based on the following three questions:
Do you approve or disapprove of the overall job that (a) Pope Benedict XVI, (b) that the American Catholic Bishops are doing? [emphasis added].
Over half (56%) of the American Catholic adult population expresses confidence in the overall job the Pope is doing. Only about 3 in 10 (32%) disagree that the Holy Father is doing and adequate job. However, when asked about the American bishops' "job rating," the split is basically 50-50. forty-five percent said the Bishops are doing a good job, while 44% are not happy with the overall job the bishops are doing.
Perhaps the full report will give further details and other comparisons. As it stands now, whether the Pope or the bishops are doing a "good job"overall may well be influenced by specific issues. for example with the American bishops, some could be very "pro-life" with the bishops but against them on immigration. Some people support the Pope's efforts on getting rid of sex abuse but oppose his efforts to stave off global warming. There is a more specific question.
Overall how would you rate (a) Benedict's, (b) the American Catholic bishops' efforts to address the sexual abuse situation within the Catholic Church?
Regarding Pope Benedict, 38% say he is doing an "Excellent" or Good" job handling the sex abuse crisis. But more than half of all adult Catholics (56%), express negative feelings about Benedict's efforts to address the sexual abuse problem in the Church.
The American Bishops fare even worse than the pope. Only one-fifth of American Catholics (20%) are positive about the Bishop's efforts to solve the crisis. On the other hand, three-quarters of American Catholics are negative about the bishops' efforts to solve the sex abuse crisis.
How might we explain these very negative ratings? Many have already tried to explain the "loss of faith" in Catholic leaders. Just a few of the reasons given include: moving priest abusers from parish to parish so they might abuse again, fearing more for the reputation of the institutional Church than the harm done to the abuse victims, the lack of compassion to the victims and their families (and we learn now, a lack of compassion toward those priests who have been exonerated by civil and religious authority). The list is nearly endless.
Certainly individual cardinals, bishops, priests, lay persons employed by the Church (E.g. lawyers, media spokespersons, etc), have made "mistakes" and even sins in the way cases of sex abuse have been handled.
Some Cardinals have praised bishops who refuse to cooperate with civil authorities. Some American bishops have been very slow to implement the procedures (E.g. "One-strike and you are out") to attend to sex abuse as agreed to by the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Vatican with the Pope's blessing. Many of these examples apply to mistaken judgments on the part of individual clerics, some of whom were naive or misguided. In some other individual cases, I suspect that sinful motives of power, control and advancement were present, even dominant.
The American Catholic community, like the U.S. population in general can be very forgiving and compassionate as long as leaders accept responsibility and make amends, even if that involve resignation from office or imprisonment.
Until the very bureaucratic, secretive system that has grown, not only for legitimate governance, but also as a control mechanism, is thoroughly modified from top to bottom, with a very high level of transparency, trust will never be fully restored. The American people have suffered at the hand of misguide or criminal entrepreneurs, politicians, bankers, and Congresspersons. What they are upset and angry about is that the institutional Church has not held itself to a higher Christian code of ethics. Again, a more Christian, humane, transparent, justice with mercy system must be established to restore the faith and confidence of American Catholics.
Some have called for the Pope to resign as a result of the sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Others believe he should not resign. Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI should resign or do you believe he should continue?
There is clear evidence in this survey that the bulk of American Catholics do not believe that the Pope should resign. In fact, almost two-thirds (64%) say that Pope Benedict XVI should continue as pope. Only 16% say that he should resign. Finally, about 20% of American Catholics say they are "insure" or "Don't Know" if the pope should continue or resign. Assume for a moment that the entire group of "unsure" and "Don't know" Catholics make up their minds in favor of resignation. Even then, those in favor of the pope remaining in office would be double the number favoring resignation.
Those who seek resignation do so for a number of reasons. Most salient these days is dissatisfaction with the handling of the pedophilia / abuse reality as indicated in the answer to the second question above. Also there is a belief by some that the way the pope, Vatican Congregations and bishops conduct affairs to much too secretive and authoritarian; that in today's world the Church must be more "open" and "democratic".
Yes, there is much frustration and anger that so much has been covered up in the past and that vigorous reformation of the procedures and processes in the Church are too slow and incomplete in light of the terrible seriousness of this situation. I too am frustrated and saddened over the current state of affairs!!
But should Pope Benedict XVII resign????? NO !!! I have come to this conclusion on my own, but I was influenced by two recent articles in NCR by John Allen. Allen praised and critiqued the Pope. He laid out things that the Pope could do and and "should do" to deal with the Sex Abuse issue and set the stage for appropriate procedures in the future.
Allen suggests that Pope Benedict XVI is the best available (only??) person to have at this time for response to this particular crisis. Benedict knows more about the history of sex abuse than just about any living person. Since being made responsible to handle all sex abuse cases in the 1980s as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he has the best overview of what has transpired recently.He has also made some very important changes. He was a key player in approving the American Bishops' "One strike and you're out" policy and telling bishops to cooperate with civil authorities. More recently he has shown some compassion toward the actual victims themselves.
Yes, in spite of the slowness of these moves and errors in judgment and action, The Holy Father is the most knowledgeable person and the one with the authority to set the record straight, require bishops to respond in appropriate ways and implement necessary changes to provide transparency in Church decisions, procedures.
If the Pope resigns can anyone not realize the confusion and vacuum that would delay any further progress in dealing with this issue? Can anyone not realize how long it would take a new pope to "get up to speed" on this issue? Although it has been much less than adequate, Benedict has the knowledge and experience to act. How many others, who have a chance to be elected pope, have this knowledge and experience? How many have realized that a new pope might be more conservative, even reactionary and undo what has been done. Anyone for a certain French bishop as pope?.
No, what we need now is relatively quick action to handle this issue now! The responsibility of the laity and much of the lower clergy is to address our frustration an/or anger to influence (pressure?) for changes we know must occur.
What do you think about resignation or continuation for the Pope?
Do you have any suggestions for me or others of ways to successfully influence the Pope (and the Vatican / bishops) to implement better ways of responding to this issue?
I would appreciate comments on this post :)
Showing posts with label Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Power. Show all posts
02 April, 2010
Sex Abuse and both/and ?
Can there be a middle ground in the ever widening sex-abuse scandal engulfing the Catholic Church? John Allen of the NCR asked this question yesterday and provided his judgment on that issue
I consider myself a Vatican II Progressive Catholic, but deeply impressed into my being is an appreciation of and commitment to the "both/and" characteristic (sacramentalism, analogical imagination) of Catholicism. I understand, but appreciate less, the "either/or" view of life. The world always appears in terms of gray, thus the both/and view is essential. However, we are sometimes (often?) called upon the make specific and clear choices.
The sex-abuse scandal is a complex situation and the issue of Benedict's action makes it more so. Those who have read my previous posts should know that I believe:
When it comes to the current crisis, especially regarding the Holy Father, John Allen asks whether there is a middle ground. Based on his extensive knowledge and experience, he makes two points.
People want, increasingly demand, the "truth" and admission of wrong doing from their leaders. Whether or not Benedict has told the "truth" or allowed or participated "cover ups," it will eventually become necessary to provide a credible explanation and, if necessary admission of wrong doing by commission or omission.
Allen's second point is that:
If you have an opinion leave a comment.
Sadly, Allen reports that response his article(s) has been divided between the two extremes: those who claim that he's part of the extreme Left and doing a "hatchet job" on the Church. At the opposite extreme, commentors say things like, "Don't you ever get tired of being an apologist for the Vatican?"
John ends by asking, about very controversial issues, "Is there room for a middle ground?"
My answer right now is "I don't know, but I hope so."
What about you, my readers? Do you have an opinion?
I consider myself a Vatican II Progressive Catholic, but deeply impressed into my being is an appreciation of and commitment to the "both/and" characteristic (sacramentalism, analogical imagination) of Catholicism. I understand, but appreciate less, the "either/or" view of life. The world always appears in terms of gray, thus the both/and view is essential. However, we are sometimes (often?) called upon the make specific and clear choices.
The sex-abuse scandal is a complex situation and the issue of Benedict's action makes it more so. Those who have read my previous posts should know that I believe:
- That the primary response of individuals and "the Church" must be compassion and assistance to the victims of abuse.
- That prevention of further abuse must occur even if that calls for dramatic or major changes in Church administration, internal procedures, and practices (E.g. optional celibacy, Married priests secrecy,).
- That abusers should also be treated with compassion, but should always be prosecuted to the full extent of Civil and Canon law. The goal must be the protection of the community (society) and not revenge.
- That we must stop talking about "mistakes." Call things what they are: "illness" or "moral" evil as the case may be. In both civil life and the Church no one ever seem to do anything "wrong" these days. Everyone seems to only "make mistakes." Abusers my be ill; they make bad or sinful decisions. An adult doesn't just mistakenly abuse a child or anyone subject to his influence, authority or power.
- What has been said of abusers applies even more so to priests, bishops, and a system that neglects, covers up or "makes mistakes" about sex abuse. I have experienced the culture in which deviant behaviors (E.g. alcoholism, sexual behaviors) were interpreted only as moral/spiritual problems. That is the culture that many Church leaders grew up in. However that day must pass.
When it comes to the current crisis, especially regarding the Holy Father, John Allen asks whether there is a middle ground. Based on his extensive knowledge and experience, he makes two points.
The two cases from Pope Benedict's past that have recently come to light, one in Munich and one from his years at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, raise important questions, and the pope needs to answer them in order to move ahead. (Emphasis added)We live in a new age, a time that requires, demands, transparency. Look at our political life. Think of Richard Nixon and Watergate, Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair, the whole debate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or recent accusations of "back room politics" and health care reform. People can no longer, and will never, accept "cover-ups, appeals to secrecy, etc.
People want, increasingly demand, the "truth" and admission of wrong doing from their leaders. Whether or not Benedict has told the "truth" or allowed or participated "cover ups," it will eventually become necessary to provide a credible explanation and, if necessary admission of wrong doing by commission or omission.
Allen's second point is that:
Those questions, however, have to be seen in the context of his overall record on the crisis, and particularly since 2001, when John Paul II put then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in charge of reviewing the case files, there's a lot to be said for that record.I believe any objective observer will agree that some positive change has occurred since 2001. The question is whether there has been enough "positive changes" and if they are the correct changes in the right places.
If you have an opinion leave a comment.
Sadly, Allen reports that response his article(s) has been divided between the two extremes: those who claim that he's part of the extreme Left and doing a "hatchet job" on the Church. At the opposite extreme, commentors say things like, "Don't you ever get tired of being an apologist for the Vatican?"
John ends by asking, about very controversial issues, "Is there room for a middle ground?"
My answer right now is "I don't know, but I hope so."
What about you, my readers? Do you have an opinion?
14 March, 2010
Compassion
The Parable of the Prodigal Son was the Gospel reading at Mass this weekend 3/13-14. For those who have not read it see; Luke 15:11-31.
After the younger son has traversed the world beyond his home and spent all of his inheritance, he decides to return home and seek the forgiveness of his father.
In recent posts I have spoken, with some degree of sadness and anger about what I perceive to be a lack of compassionate pastoral response from many Church leaders.
There was the case of incompassionate response to the plight of a nine year old girl who had been raped and whose mother had her twins aborted.
There was the case of the Mexican Cardinal, who spoke out so publicly and harshly about LGBT people.
There was the case where a pastor, with the support of the bishop's later public statement, removed an elementary school child from a Catholic school because his caregivers were partnered lesbians.
Why is there no indication that the little girl, gay people, and the little boy were shown compassion? It would seem that these victims who have been the first to be protected from public attention. It seems that the innocent victims would have been shown pastoral care, love and support.
But we've been there not too long ago when the victims of pedophilia were paid little attention as traumatized human beings. Money was spent to "defend" the Church's reputation. A bunch of money was transferred to some victims for counseling and psychotherapy. But why were so many hierarchs unable or unwilling to meet one-on-one with victims and feel their hurt, fragility and justifiable anger at the Church with the compassion of God as proclaimed in this parable? It seems that the bishops (and many others) are more like the elder son who was "faithful" in following the Law, but jealous and incompassionate toward his younger brother.
I have deep faith in and hope for the Christian-Catholic community. However, particularly these days the institutional bureaucracy of the Church is called to a continued repentance and to heed the Gospel call in the way it operates. There are those in the Church (both clergy and laity) who believe that the essence of the Church and Christian Life are to "follow the Law" as laid out in legal fashion as the means to spiritual growth and salvation. It is sufficient to know the rules and obey them. They have been called "Proclaimers of Certainty" because they believe they already know God's plan and can administer it. In many cases, those who believe this way are more comfortable with the words and images expressed in Deut: 21:18-21.
There are others in the Church, who by no means reject the value of Law and rules. However they see these as ideals to be striven for, but maybe never reached, in the attempt to be true to the Gospel, to Jesus; to be compassionate. Take for example, Archbishop Quinn when he was in San Francisco. He was able to work out arrangements for the availability of heath benefits for gays who worked for Catholic agencies and to honor and keep to the Church's teachings about homosexuality. Those who believe this way are more comfortable with Psalm 103, especially verses 4, 8, and 12-13
What appears in some of my posts as anger, is really frustration and a call to take seriously the Gospel message and the teachings of Vatican II, rather than a view in which Law trumps compassion and Love.
After the younger son has traversed the world beyond his home and spent all of his inheritance, he decides to return home and seek the forgiveness of his father.
While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him , and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him. (Verse 20b).
There was the case of incompassionate response to the plight of a nine year old girl who had been raped and whose mother had her twins aborted.
There was the case of the Mexican Cardinal, who spoke out so publicly and harshly about LGBT people.
There was the case where a pastor, with the support of the bishop's later public statement, removed an elementary school child from a Catholic school because his caregivers were partnered lesbians.
Why is there no indication that the little girl, gay people, and the little boy were shown compassion? It would seem that these victims who have been the first to be protected from public attention. It seems that the innocent victims would have been shown pastoral care, love and support.
But we've been there not too long ago when the victims of pedophilia were paid little attention as traumatized human beings. Money was spent to "defend" the Church's reputation. A bunch of money was transferred to some victims for counseling and psychotherapy. But why were so many hierarchs unable or unwilling to meet one-on-one with victims and feel their hurt, fragility and justifiable anger at the Church with the compassion of God as proclaimed in this parable? It seems that the bishops (and many others) are more like the elder son who was "faithful" in following the Law, but jealous and incompassionate toward his younger brother.
I have deep faith in and hope for the Christian-Catholic community. However, particularly these days the institutional bureaucracy of the Church is called to a continued repentance and to heed the Gospel call in the way it operates. There are those in the Church (both clergy and laity) who believe that the essence of the Church and Christian Life are to "follow the Law" as laid out in legal fashion as the means to spiritual growth and salvation. It is sufficient to know the rules and obey them. They have been called "Proclaimers of Certainty" because they believe they already know God's plan and can administer it. In many cases, those who believe this way are more comfortable with the words and images expressed in Deut: 21:18-21.
There are others in the Church, who by no means reject the value of Law and rules. However they see these as ideals to be striven for, but maybe never reached, in the attempt to be true to the Gospel, to Jesus; to be compassionate. Take for example, Archbishop Quinn when he was in San Francisco. He was able to work out arrangements for the availability of heath benefits for gays who worked for Catholic agencies and to honor and keep to the Church's teachings about homosexuality. Those who believe this way are more comfortable with Psalm 103, especially verses 4, 8, and 12-13
What appears in some of my posts as anger, is really frustration and a call to take seriously the Gospel message and the teachings of Vatican II, rather than a view in which Law trumps compassion and Love.
28 January, 2010
Taking Stock::- Some thoughts
I recently received a comment from a person who came into the Vatican II Church. It seems that anonymous was happy and found a "new family" in the Church until the display of power and authoritarianism came to the fore in the last few years. Listen to anonymous:
Yes, I too am frustrated and angry at the re-assertion of 19th century neo-scholastic theology as the guiding force for the "reform of the reform:" the results of which we see in recent liturgical changes, and the reorientation of "inter-religious dialogue" toward "inter-cultural dialogue." [Both are important and necessary]. We have seen the widespread use of the Tridentine Latin Mass encouraged and the Latinization of our English Liturgy as well as permitting conservative Anglican married clergy to join the Roman Catholic Church with little attention to many of our good priests who de facto were required to submit to a promise of celibacy. All of these changes were made without any real attempts to get input from the laity or even the "lower" clergy. At the very least, these changes have the odor power more than pastoral care. Sometimes it seems to me that the fear of secularization and modern culture and the rise of "Evangelical Catholicism" simply result from a loss of Faith and Hope at the Vatican and among many bishops.
Yes, secularization and our modern culture, especially our rank individualism, present challenges to us as Catholic Christians and to the whole People of God. But my trust and Faith in God and my sense of Hope (probably the least preached on virtue), will not allow me to find solace in returning to the rigid, authoritarian institutional structures of the 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.
Some say that Vatican II has been the cause of a weakened Church, the reason for an increase in "non-practicing Catholics," the lack of converts, and on and on. I would only ask those who feel this way to consider for a moment, "Might it not be the case that the Church and the world would be much, much worse off had it not been for Vatican II?"
I will, and I encourage Anonymous and everyone else who loves the People of God to re-affirm their own commitment to to the Holy Spirit guided words of Vatican II. At a practical level this will mean finding support through small faith groups who live from Vatican II and more recent progressive theology. Remain close to the Scripture and seek out Vatican II oriented priests for Liturgy. If possible, read good Church history (E.g. McBrien's, The Church) and remember we stand in continuity with a People who go back to Jesus; that our history did not begin with the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation. Those who value Vatican II will find common ground with of the institutional Church's social justice principles. Hopefully, we can exert influence to apply those principles within the Church (E.g. for women, LGBT persons, ordination of both genders with attention to married as well as single clergy, significant roles for laity within the Church, not "just" in "Catholic Action" in the larger society, etc.).
In the end there must be compassion for ourselves, for those who are so regularly hurt by actions on the part of the powerful in the Church, and even toward those who understand the Church so differently from the authentic understanding of Vatican II. Conservatives often say, with regard to gays, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." [I believe that statement continues to be a put-down of gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people, just as those who insult women with regard to ordination when they say, "You lack only one thing, a penis."]. But maye we could say, " 'Hate' revisionist theology and practice, but love the revisionists."
Pax vobis et oremus pro invicem!!
I being a convert to Catholicism lost family ties as well as friendship to become a Catholic and I have found myself suddenly abandoned on a sea of rules and regulations....I have only been around Vatican II theology.... and I now feel so betrayed, disappointed, and disgusted that I can no longer fight the systematic reversal of Vatican II.... and despite that I can no longer worship with people I love as much as my own family I cannot continue to call myself a Roman Catholic and still be true to my conscience...
Do you read frustration, anger, and, especially, deep hurt in this person. What touches me the most is the sense of hurt and betrayal; a sense that "the People of God," collegiality, and ecumenism, no longer characterize the community he was, by the grace of God, called into at a great price.
Yes, I too am frustrated and angry at the re-assertion of 19th century neo-scholastic theology as the guiding force for the "reform of the reform:" the results of which we see in recent liturgical changes, and the reorientation of "inter-religious dialogue" toward "inter-cultural dialogue." [Both are important and necessary]. We have seen the widespread use of the Tridentine Latin Mass encouraged and the Latinization of our English Liturgy as well as permitting conservative Anglican married clergy to join the Roman Catholic Church with little attention to many of our good priests who de facto were required to submit to a promise of celibacy. All of these changes were made without any real attempts to get input from the laity or even the "lower" clergy. At the very least, these changes have the odor power more than pastoral care. Sometimes it seems to me that the fear of secularization and modern culture and the rise of "Evangelical Catholicism" simply result from a loss of Faith and Hope at the Vatican and among many bishops.
Yes, secularization and our modern culture, especially our rank individualism, present challenges to us as Catholic Christians and to the whole People of God. But my trust and Faith in God and my sense of Hope (probably the least preached on virtue), will not allow me to find solace in returning to the rigid, authoritarian institutional structures of the 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.
Some say that Vatican II has been the cause of a weakened Church, the reason for an increase in "non-practicing Catholics," the lack of converts, and on and on. I would only ask those who feel this way to consider for a moment, "Might it not be the case that the Church and the world would be much, much worse off had it not been for Vatican II?"
I will, and I encourage Anonymous and everyone else who loves the People of God to re-affirm their own commitment to to the Holy Spirit guided words of Vatican II. At a practical level this will mean finding support through small faith groups who live from Vatican II and more recent progressive theology. Remain close to the Scripture and seek out Vatican II oriented priests for Liturgy. If possible, read good Church history (E.g. McBrien's, The Church) and remember we stand in continuity with a People who go back to Jesus; that our history did not begin with the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation. Those who value Vatican II will find common ground with of the institutional Church's social justice principles. Hopefully, we can exert influence to apply those principles within the Church (E.g. for women, LGBT persons, ordination of both genders with attention to married as well as single clergy, significant roles for laity within the Church, not "just" in "Catholic Action" in the larger society, etc.).
In the end there must be compassion for ourselves, for those who are so regularly hurt by actions on the part of the powerful in the Church, and even toward those who understand the Church so differently from the authentic understanding of Vatican II. Conservatives often say, with regard to gays, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." [I believe that statement continues to be a put-down of gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people, just as those who insult women with regard to ordination when they say, "You lack only one thing, a penis."]. But maye we could say, " 'Hate' revisionist theology and practice, but love the revisionists."
Pax vobis et oremus pro invicem!!
15 October, 2009
What's the Church for?
It goes without saying that the Church is the People of God and its purpose is to help bring about the Reign of God.
Bringing about the Reign of God is the essential mission of the People of God; it is much more important than preserving any particular structure of the Institutional Church. "Being church" for the nurture of the members is necessary but not sufficient. The Church really exists to "do Church" in this world, that is, to reach out to everyone and everything in the world. Its mission is to participate in establishing the Reign of God.
Except for its emphasis on the abortion issue, the Church, in recent years, has spent more time and effort on protecting and preserving current institutional structures and nurturing the People than on its essential mission to the world. Little attention has been given to traditional social justice issues like just wages or newer ecumenical approaches to protecting and nurturing the environment as a call to stewardship of creation.
I wonder if the paedophilia scandal has so disabled the bishops that they are afraid to speak out boldly on anything other than sexual issues. I wonder if concern to maintain existing power relations within the Church require so much attention to internal affairs that the clergy have no time or energy left to foster or support social action in the "world." What do you think?
Bringing about the Reign of God is the essential mission of the People of God; it is much more important than preserving any particular structure of the Institutional Church. "Being church" for the nurture of the members is necessary but not sufficient. The Church really exists to "do Church" in this world, that is, to reach out to everyone and everything in the world. Its mission is to participate in establishing the Reign of God.
Except for its emphasis on the abortion issue, the Church, in recent years, has spent more time and effort on protecting and preserving current institutional structures and nurturing the People than on its essential mission to the world. Little attention has been given to traditional social justice issues like just wages or newer ecumenical approaches to protecting and nurturing the environment as a call to stewardship of creation.
I wonder if the paedophilia scandal has so disabled the bishops that they are afraid to speak out boldly on anything other than sexual issues. I wonder if concern to maintain existing power relations within the Church require so much attention to internal affairs that the clergy have no time or energy left to foster or support social action in the "world." What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)