In Defense of the Pope
April 8, 2010
James Conley
Over these past few weeks a flurry of stories have appeared in the media regarding clergy sexual abuse and its mishandling by Catholic bishops and even the pope himself. Much of this information is dated. The fact that these stories were triggered in part by an attorney with a long and lucrative financial history of litigating the Catholic community and were pressed with such enthusiasm by editors during Holy Week—and in particular on Good Friday—could hardly have been a coincidence.
Sexual abuse of children cries to heaven for justice. It violates everything that is good and holy. It mocks everything Christ said in the gospels. Jesus compared the Kingdom of Heaven to the innocence of a little child. And for a Catholic priest to commit a crime and a sin like this is profoundly evil.
But sexual abuse is not uniquely or even predominantly a Catholic problem. It is a sickness widespread in our culture and also a global problem. Most studies indicate that in the United States as much as 60 percent of all sexual abuse of minors takes place within families.
It's certainly true that some Catholic priests perpetrated this evil on the innocent in years past. And too many Catholic bishops ignored or failed to grasp the gravity of this crime in addressing the problem. These men are gravely accountable to God for their actions.
But no other community or institution has examined itself on this painful issue as rigorously as the Catholic Church. No other group has put into place zero tolerance policies for sexual abuse and created safe environment programs like the Catholic Church in America, to the point where the Church is one of the most secure environments anywhere for children and young people.
And no person has done more to rid the Church of the evil of sexual abuse than the current successor of St. Peter, Benedict XVI. As archbishop of Munich thirty years ago, then as the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and now as the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict has always been dedicated to his responsibilities of purifying the Church in this area.
I served as an official in the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops for ten years. In that capacity, I worked alongside then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who was a member of our Congregation. During my last year in Rome I served under the same good man after his election as pope. I learned from direct, first-hand experience that Benedict XVI is truly a man of God, a gift to the Church and a shepherd after the heart of the Good Shepherd.
Benedict XVI named me a bishop in April 2008. As a brother bishop to the bishop of Rome, it pains my heart and should wound the heart of all Catholics, to see the vindictive way he has been treated in the media. The editorial cartoons, the opinion pieces, the vicious attacks on his person and reputation, the disinformation and twisting of facts—all these abuses against responsible press freedom have been repugnant.
No other world religious leader, Jewish, Muslim or other, would be treated in this way. Contempt for the Catholic Church—and don't be fooled; the contempt is directed not just at Church leaders, but at ordinary believers as well—no matter how vulgar or bitter, is the last acceptable prejudice. Why? Because the Catholic Church is one of the few remaining voices that speaks effectively against the moral confusion of our day. The Catholic faith does not and will not bless the damaging moral path some people now seem to prefer.
Let me close with the words of Benedict from his Holy Thursday Chrism Mass in Rome:
I am always struck by the passage in the Acts of the Apostles which recounts that after the Apostles had been whipped by order of the Sanhedrin, they "rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name of Jesus" (Acts 5:41). Anyone who loves is ready to suffer for the beloved and for the sake of his love, and in this way he experiences a deeper joy. The joy of the martyrs was stronger than the torments inflicted on them.
Discipleship involves suffering. But suffering does accomplish a powerfully good thing: It clarifies who is willing to suffer for Christ's Church and her mission, and who is not.
James D. Conley is auxiliary bishop of Denver.
Comments:
4.8.2010 | 12:40pm
Much of the information now emerging may be dated, but that does not mean that it is irrelevant. On the contrary, it means that it is simply now getting the attention that it has deserved earlier, but did not receive at the time. I am referring especially to evidence of any sort that materially implicates Pope Benedict XVI at any time of the past of stonewalling against sex abuse claims in the face of powerful or even overwhelming evidence of the veracity of the claims. There may be a statute of limitations in human legal systems, but there is no statute of limitations on unacknowledged and unatoned injustices by church heirarchs - or by anyone else, for that matter.
The stakes here in a truthful and just accounting are huge: Ultimately, nothing less than the basic credibility of the Catholic Church as a bulwark of truth and a sure intellectual refuge against the dictatorship of relativism of our age hangs in the balance. If Pope Benedict XVI has sinned against truth in the past by stonewalling legitimate grievances against sex abuse victims, and if he continues to stonewall now by pretending that these unrectified injustices do not matter because they are in the past, then not only the dictates of eternal justice, but the very credibility of the Catholic Church's commitment to truth in any form cry out to heaven for a full moral accounting. In this light, the press's revisiting unresolved scandals from the past at the present time is not at all out of place.
The stakes here in a truthful and just accounting are huge: Ultimately, nothing less than the basic credibility of the Catholic Church as a bulwark of truth and a sure intellectual refuge against the dictatorship of relativism of our age hangs in the balance. If Pope Benedict XVI has sinned against truth in the past by stonewalling legitimate grievances against sex abuse victims, and if he continues to stonewall now by pretending that these unrectified injustices do not matter because they are in the past, then not only the dictates of eternal justice, but the very credibility of the Catholic Church's commitment to truth in any form cry out to heaven for a full moral accounting. In this light, the press's revisiting unresolved scandals from the past at the present time is not at all out of place.
4.8.2010 | 12:58pm
Sean says:
Everything bishop Conley says is true, but it's still not the right way to handle this.
4.8.2010 | 1:08pm
Aimee says:
A fine piece. Your point about the association between these articles and Holy Week is well-taken--I've noticed a considerable dropping off this week. It is contempt, and it does undermine any residual faith many of us had in our press' ability to pursue the truth.
4.8.2010 | 1:48pm
Richard says:
That someone would bring up conservative principles or any reference to doctrine in this mess illustrates the core of the entire problem. No matter the accuracy of the reporting, or even the motives of some corners of the information industry to supposedly bring down the Church, the basic problem is the perception of the public. And this prelate simply continues the effort of Church officials to pay much more attention to protecting the institution than to any real and Christian concern about the victims over the years.
I agree that the Pope has taken good steps to fix the problems. I understand there were good reasons way back when for some bishops to naively move priests given what they understood then about the problem with abusers. There are good explanations. But manning the barricades in the current fire storm is not the right course. Many prelates continue to manifest the arrogance of power that had a major role in all of this from the beginning, and somehow that lesson has not been learned even today.
I agree that the Pope has taken good steps to fix the problems. I understand there were good reasons way back when for some bishops to naively move priests given what they understood then about the problem with abusers. There are good explanations. But manning the barricades in the current fire storm is not the right course. Many prelates continue to manifest the arrogance of power that had a major role in all of this from the beginning, and somehow that lesson has not been learned even today.
4.8.2010 | 1:59pm
Martin Gomez says:
I believe in my heart that we need to pray that the victims of those pederasts and pedophiles - those who used the moral authority of their priesthood, a moral authority built up over centuries by many who even sacrificed their lives to be true to the faith (e.g. the 8 Canadian martyrs) - will be able to forgive these men those sins and the great harm they have done. Only then will their own healing really be able to progress. Only then will the circle of evil be broken. Only then will the Church be able to progress in its healing. I hope that Benedict xvi offers up his current sufferings the same way Jesus did, to bring about redemption. I am - Bishop Conlan is right, we are all suffering for it. Then maybe our Church will be able to be a leader in eradicating this evil from our midst.
4.8.2010 | 2:58pm
Sean says:
Eh, you're overblowing it, COEM.
But it is interesting that this dated info came out for Holy Week. Looks like there was no new gnostic gospel discovery made in time for the annual Easter Scandal so they had to find something to re-hash.
But it is interesting that this dated info came out for Holy Week. Looks like there was no new gnostic gospel discovery made in time for the annual Easter Scandal so they had to find something to re-hash.
4.8.2010 | 4:02pm
JP says:
"I am referring especially to evidence of any sort that materially implicates Pope Benedict XVI at any time of the past of stonewalling against sex abuse claims in the face of powerful or even overwhelming evidence of the veracity of the claims."
And what evidence is that? Before jumping on the bandwagon, first give evidence. Are you referring to the slander put forth by Christopher Hitchens, or the New York Times?
And what evidence is that? Before jumping on the bandwagon, first give evidence. Are you referring to the slander put forth by Christopher Hitchens, or the New York Times?
4.8.2010 | 4:53pm
G. Douglas Eddy says:
With all due respect, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ among many other denominations have even more stringent policies. Additionally, the clergy are prosecuted by the laws of the denominations. NO excuse of past decisions or behaviors are permitted. ALL denominations are equally to blame for ignoring as well as tolerating such illegal behavior, including sexual misbehavior of clergy with other adults and all forms of abuse - physical, sexual and psychological. But I have to say I see a clear failure to accept and confess full responsibility for the sinful and life destroying behaviors of the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. I say this as one who works in these areas as a clergy person. I also say this as a person working to improve our branch of the Christian Community's response. I even more strongly say this as a follower of the same Jesus Christ as the bishop. His article seems to me to minimalize the responsibility of the current Pope and the other officials who were in a position that it was their duty to respond to the cries of the children. That they did not do so is certainly understandable given the climate of the times. That they do not confess, seek forgiveness, and open themselves to the grace of God and the heart of the people seems like sheer pride to me. Shame on them and shame on those who defend them. Try humility as Christ did and let the rest fall where it will. Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do. The children suffer even into adulthood and it is a systemic as well as personal guilt.
4.8.2010 | 5:12pm
Adrian says:
Excellent piece Bishop Conley.
"No other world religious leader, Jewish, Muslim or other, would be treated in this way. "
You can bet your bottom dollar on that for sure...
"No other world religious leader, Jewish, Muslim or other, would be treated in this way. "
You can bet your bottom dollar on that for sure...
4.8.2010 | 7:26pm
Harry Biltz says:
God became a man and hand-picked twelve guys to lead His church. One of them was Judas Iscariot. If Christ Himself had one out of twelve go bad on Him, we can be sure the Church will always have to deal with Judas Iscariot types within its leadership. The revelation that some priests and bishops have behaved in ways that are downright evil should not surprise us. But let's keep things in perspective. There are nearly a half million Catholic priests in the world. The way the media cover the abuse crisis it is easy to forget that the vast majority of them have never been accused of anything; they are loved by those they serve and live lives that give glory to God. They bring the truth of God's love, the peace of Christ and the good news of the gospel, as well as delivering vast material blessings, to countless souls worldwide. It is a very good thing that they are with us. And what has the mass media done for the world? They have propped up the lethal abuse of countless millions of children by manufacturing bigotry against the child in the womb, that's what. Let's see, who should I take seriously? A half million clergy who have been faithful to the teachings of Christ and are living exemplary lives, or the propagators of deadly propaganda that has resulted in a holocaust innocent human life? What was that Jesus said about knowing them by their fruits?.
4.8.2010 | 7:39pm
Mike Wescott says:
Thank you Bishop Conley. You speak the truth and make us in Wichita proud!
4.8.2010 | 9:05pm
senex says:
Where is the hard data to support the personal involvement/decision making of Pope Benedict while a bishop of Munich or as cardinal prefect of CDF that he condoned priestly sexual abuse or ordered a known priestly offender back into regular parish work? Absent that there is no case, just innuendos to smear his reputation. Don’t taint his man because of what others have done.
4.8.2010 | 9:17pm
hayesms says:
The problem isn't just the priests who committed the abuse. It's the bishops, archbishops and others who allowed the abuse to continue by shuffling those priests through parish after parish despite repeated allegations of abuse. And the hush money paid to the victims. And now the failure, after all these years, to openly address the problem. Thank God for the media. Were it not for them -- and the sensus fidelium that rightly recognizes this for what it is: a scandal -- this would still be going on more or less unabated.
4.8.2010 | 11:30pm
Ernie Bianco says:
The one institution which steadfastly condemns the immorality of our secular tendencies is the Roman Catholic Church. Is it any wonder, then, that those "forces out there" want to destroy the credibility, the authority of the Church, To do so, they would push, even further, their cause for abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, etc. Truly, we, our Church, Christ's body, are under attack. Pray!
4.9.2010 | 8:53am
Lex says:
CRIMEN SOLLICITATIONIS makes for very troubling reading in this context. Check it out in PDF format here: http://irregulartimes.com/IrregularCriminales.pdf
Excerpts:
11. Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest ++7++ secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Indeed by
this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the force of their own proper duty. The other helpers from the power of their oath which they must always take before they undertake their duties. And these, then, are delegated,
are interpolated, and are informed in their absence by means of the precept in the letters of delegation, interpellation, [or of] information, imposing upon them with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure.
13. The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses.
Excerpts:
11. Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest ++7++ secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Indeed by
this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the force of their own proper duty. The other helpers from the power of their oath which they must always take before they undertake their duties. And these, then, are delegated,
are interpolated, and are informed in their absence by means of the precept in the letters of delegation, interpellation, [or of] information, imposing upon them with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure.
13. The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses.
4.9.2010 | 11:00am
Zero tolerance looks sounds good; however, it is easier said than done. A high degree of discretion is also necessary. The innocent must be protected—that’s for sure; however, the innocent may also include a falsely accused priest. So, in cases like that, it is easy to see how the Vatican and Church hierarchy may walk too cautiously at times. However, when a priest molests a child, and the hierarchy knows it, the police should be notified immediately—forgiveness can come later. No doubt about it, The Vatican and The Pope have really dropped the ball on this one.
4.9.2010 | 12:39pm
Sean says:
Paul Shonk,
It reads like a bait-and-switch. Go off talking about all the bad things bishops and priests did, and then switch it around at the end to pointing out (and in most eyes it'll come across as unsympathetic complaining about) the treatment the RCC has gotten in the press. I say man up, admit you did wrong, and then take your lumps while quietly re-structuring seminaries to exclude effeminates and other types liable to engage in these behaviors. Then let others complain about the press doing you wrong.
It reads like a bait-and-switch. Go off talking about all the bad things bishops and priests did, and then switch it around at the end to pointing out (and in most eyes it'll come across as unsympathetic complaining about) the treatment the RCC has gotten in the press. I say man up, admit you did wrong, and then take your lumps while quietly re-structuring seminaries to exclude effeminates and other types liable to engage in these behaviors. Then let others complain about the press doing you wrong.
4.9.2010 | 1:45pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
To Church of the East,
Neither Bishop Conley nor anyone else has said it is wrong for the media to "revisit" misdeeds that were not properly reported in the past. The question is the manner of revisiting. The fact that the media are justified in dealing with the subject does not justify the misleading headlines, innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations, sensationalism, factual errors, and omissions of relevant facts.
To Lex,
Many tribunals and investigators both civil and ecclesiastical have oaths of secrecy and codes of secrecy to protect the reputations of people who are accused but may be innocent. In our system grand jury proceedings are secret, for example. FBI files are also protected by confidentiality. The reasons are obvious. These oaths you are referring to had to do with the proceedings of investigations and tribunals and testimony before them (e.g. "each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal"). They did NOT prevent church officials from reporting to civil authorities the names of priests who had been found guilty by these proceedings.
To G. Douglas Eddy,
You speak of those who would "minimize" the responsibility of the Pope, when it has not been shown by anyone that the Pope had committed (as pope or as bishop) any actual misdeed for which responsibility should be taken. Implicitly this amounts to an accusation of wrongdoing. To make such an accusation without sufficient grounds is improper.
In many statements made by many commentators on this subject, both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians, there is a whiff of moral self-congratulation.
Neither Bishop Conley nor anyone else has said it is wrong for the media to "revisit" misdeeds that were not properly reported in the past. The question is the manner of revisiting. The fact that the media are justified in dealing with the subject does not justify the misleading headlines, innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations, sensationalism, factual errors, and omissions of relevant facts.
To Lex,
Many tribunals and investigators both civil and ecclesiastical have oaths of secrecy and codes of secrecy to protect the reputations of people who are accused but may be innocent. In our system grand jury proceedings are secret, for example. FBI files are also protected by confidentiality. The reasons are obvious. These oaths you are referring to had to do with the proceedings of investigations and tribunals and testimony before them (e.g. "each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal"). They did NOT prevent church officials from reporting to civil authorities the names of priests who had been found guilty by these proceedings.
To G. Douglas Eddy,
You speak of those who would "minimize" the responsibility of the Pope, when it has not been shown by anyone that the Pope had committed (as pope or as bishop) any actual misdeed for which responsibility should be taken. Implicitly this amounts to an accusation of wrongdoing. To make such an accusation without sufficient grounds is improper.
In many statements made by many commentators on this subject, both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians, there is a whiff of moral self-congratulation.
4.9.2010 | 2:02pm
From the Third World says:
I'm a missionary with over 30 years in Latin America. The problem is both rampant and very much alive and kicking down here. By no means is it "dated" in the Church, if you extend your definition of the Church to the other two thirds of us. At least a letter from Benedict XVI could shake us up. Anything, please. We're desperate! Evidently the press and the lawyers will have step in to get us out of our lethargy. But when?
4.9.2010 | 2:56pm
Edward Alleyn says:
In order to thoroughly address the current situation, at some point we must ask ourselves: Why are we, the Church, having this problem with pedophiles and pederasts?
Are they attracted to the Church because they feel they will go unpunished if caught? Are some entering the Church with the intention of harming the church?
Then we will have a better understanding of a how to prevent sexual predators from entering the clergy.
Are they attracted to the Church because they feel they will go unpunished if caught? Are some entering the Church with the intention of harming the church?
Then we will have a better understanding of a how to prevent sexual predators from entering the clergy.
4.9.2010 | 4:35pm
Russell E. Saltzman says:
"No other world religious leader, Jewish, Muslim or other, would be treated in this way. "
That is certainly so. But it must be noted, no other world religious leadership claims as much for itself as does the papacy. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary accountability. If the papacy represented some pipsqueak denomination no one would bother closely examining it in light of its own professed standards. Nor would it suffer as much when perceived as having failed those standards. But since the papacy is the papacy asserting a universal pastorate in service to the whole Church, then a little pastoral humility is required in the moment.
His Holiness should undertake public penance on behalf of the Church - paying homage to victims, promising swift exposure of current records and facts, declaring a personal period of fasting and prayer and urging clerics to join him - as an example to his bishops and to the Catholic faithful. . .and to those who would be among them. In the end he is beholding, not to the press, but to those faithful to whom he is shepherd who can no longer recite the Apostle's Creed with the same confidence as they once did: "I believe. . .in the Holy Catholic Church."
That is certainly so. But it must be noted, no other world religious leadership claims as much for itself as does the papacy. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary accountability. If the papacy represented some pipsqueak denomination no one would bother closely examining it in light of its own professed standards. Nor would it suffer as much when perceived as having failed those standards. But since the papacy is the papacy asserting a universal pastorate in service to the whole Church, then a little pastoral humility is required in the moment.
His Holiness should undertake public penance on behalf of the Church - paying homage to victims, promising swift exposure of current records and facts, declaring a personal period of fasting and prayer and urging clerics to join him - as an example to his bishops and to the Catholic faithful. . .and to those who would be among them. In the end he is beholding, not to the press, but to those faithful to whom he is shepherd who can no longer recite the Apostle's Creed with the same confidence as they once did: "I believe. . .in the Holy Catholic Church."
4.9.2010 | 4:40pm
DNB says:
Here’s a little comparative context from an article by Thomas Plante, a Professor and Chair of Psychology and Director of the Spirituality and Health Insitute at Santa Clara University as well as a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine.
First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). However, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.
Second, 80% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys not prepubescent children.
Third, quality research suggests that half of the clergy sex offenders in the Catholic Church had one victim. Almost all the cases coming to light today are cases from 30 and 40 years ago. We did not know much about pedophilia and sexual abuse in general back then. In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake.
It has been estimated that 40 years ago about 23% of male psychotherapists have been sexually involved with their clients.
First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). However, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.
Second, 80% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys not prepubescent children.
Third, quality research suggests that half of the clergy sex offenders in the Catholic Church had one victim. Almost all the cases coming to light today are cases from 30 and 40 years ago. We did not know much about pedophilia and sexual abuse in general back then. In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake.
It has been estimated that 40 years ago about 23% of male psychotherapists have been sexually involved with their clients.
4.9.2010 | 7:10pm
hayesms says:
This article reminds me of St. Paul's warning to the church in Corinth:
"For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
"But the problem of divisions and factions is not uniquely or even predominantly a church problem. It is a sickness widespread in our culture and also a global problem. And no other community or institution has examined itself on this painful issue as rigorously as the church.
"The real issue is who is spreading these reports of divisions among Christians and away. Contempt for the church—and don't be fooled; the contempt is directed not just at church leaders, but at ordinary believers as well—no matter how vulgar or bitter, is the last acceptable prejudice. Why? Because the church is one of the few remaining voices that speaks effectively against the moral confusion of our day. The church's faith does not and will not bless the damaging moral path some people now seem to prefer, and that is why they are spreading reports about the divisions among us."
Or, at least, that's how I suspect the passage would have been written by Bishop Conley....
"For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
"But the problem of divisions and factions is not uniquely or even predominantly a church problem. It is a sickness widespread in our culture and also a global problem. And no other community or institution has examined itself on this painful issue as rigorously as the church.
"The real issue is who is spreading these reports of divisions among Christians and away. Contempt for the church—and don't be fooled; the contempt is directed not just at church leaders, but at ordinary believers as well—no matter how vulgar or bitter, is the last acceptable prejudice. Why? Because the church is one of the few remaining voices that speaks effectively against the moral confusion of our day. The church's faith does not and will not bless the damaging moral path some people now seem to prefer, and that is why they are spreading reports about the divisions among us."
Or, at least, that's how I suspect the passage would have been written by Bishop Conley....
4.9.2010 | 7:12pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
To Russell Saltzman,
You have no reason to be aware of this, since you aren't Catholic, but we Catholics in the United States have had very frequent prayers at Mass for the victim's of sexual abuse, detailed accounts in our diocesan newspapers of the names of local priests who have been accused of abuse and information about the nature of their crimes, statements in our diocesan newspapers and at mass by our bishops apologizing, and so forth. We have been marinated in this for eight years now. Every Church-going Catholic has suffered great anguish and shame. Stringent policies have been put in place, and educational efforts implemented aimed at adults and children. No one has been allowed to forget these things.
To advise the Church that these things should now be done, as though they haven't been done and aren't continuing to be done; to advise Catholics that they should be doing penance, when we have as a Church been doing that for a decade, and when we have had our hearts ripped out and have been repeatedly knocked to our knees by these revelations .... is a bit much. I guess it is just another aspect of the penance that we must undergo.
The one thing that wasn't done in this country was to punish the bishops who were the most disgracefully negligent. Not a single bishop who hadn't committed sexual misdeeds himself was forced to resign. That is now moot, however, because, thank God, almost all of those bishops are gone --- retired or dead.
The seminaries have been cleaned up in the U.S. The present bishops are being quite vigilant.
It also should be noted that in the Irish situation, the Church has been doing things better than they were done in the U.S. eight years ago --- bishops HAVE been made to resign, for example. There have been calls by the Irish Church for collective acts of penance. The Pope's message to the Irish Church was very strong and forthright, and did contain plain statements of grief and penitence.
As for the claims of the papacy, those claims are not based on the virtues of the popes but on the authority of God. Catholics accept the doctrinal and governing authority of the Popes not because we believe them to be uniformly better than other men, but because we believe that, however unworthy they may be, they have been put in authority over us by our Lord. Even if a pope were a grievous sinner, his authority as pope would be not one whit less. Of course, we wish the popes to be holy men. And in the case of Benedict, we do have, I am convinced, a holy pope. But there has never been a "claim" that the popes would be.
You have no reason to be aware of this, since you aren't Catholic, but we Catholics in the United States have had very frequent prayers at Mass for the victim's of sexual abuse, detailed accounts in our diocesan newspapers of the names of local priests who have been accused of abuse and information about the nature of their crimes, statements in our diocesan newspapers and at mass by our bishops apologizing, and so forth. We have been marinated in this for eight years now. Every Church-going Catholic has suffered great anguish and shame. Stringent policies have been put in place, and educational efforts implemented aimed at adults and children. No one has been allowed to forget these things.
To advise the Church that these things should now be done, as though they haven't been done and aren't continuing to be done; to advise Catholics that they should be doing penance, when we have as a Church been doing that for a decade, and when we have had our hearts ripped out and have been repeatedly knocked to our knees by these revelations .... is a bit much. I guess it is just another aspect of the penance that we must undergo.
The one thing that wasn't done in this country was to punish the bishops who were the most disgracefully negligent. Not a single bishop who hadn't committed sexual misdeeds himself was forced to resign. That is now moot, however, because, thank God, almost all of those bishops are gone --- retired or dead.
The seminaries have been cleaned up in the U.S. The present bishops are being quite vigilant.
It also should be noted that in the Irish situation, the Church has been doing things better than they were done in the U.S. eight years ago --- bishops HAVE been made to resign, for example. There have been calls by the Irish Church for collective acts of penance. The Pope's message to the Irish Church was very strong and forthright, and did contain plain statements of grief and penitence.
As for the claims of the papacy, those claims are not based on the virtues of the popes but on the authority of God. Catholics accept the doctrinal and governing authority of the Popes not because we believe them to be uniformly better than other men, but because we believe that, however unworthy they may be, they have been put in authority over us by our Lord. Even if a pope were a grievous sinner, his authority as pope would be not one whit less. Of course, we wish the popes to be holy men. And in the case of Benedict, we do have, I am convinced, a holy pope. But there has never been a "claim" that the popes would be.
4.9.2010 | 9:14pm
JB in CA says:
To Stephen Barr: Concerning the last paragraph of your response to Russell Saltzman, is it not true that the Pope has to speak ex cathedra for his words to have divine authority? If not, then what's the difference between speaking with divine authority "from the chair" and speaking with divine authority "apart from the chair?" (I'm assuming that none of the current Pope's governing pronouncements concerning the sex abuse scandal have been made ex cathedra. Correct me if I'm wrong.) If there is a difference, on the other hand, would that not make his personal virtue at least somewhat relevant to his pronouncements? These are honest questions. I'm not trying to play gotcha. I really don't know.
4.9.2010 | 9:18pm
Russell E. Saltzman says:
To Stephen M. Barr:
Thank you for the reply. I do not disagree with anything you say in substance, but on some details . . .
I am aware of the prayers offered at mass and all the other good efforts of the last decade. A good part of my family through marriage is Roman Catholic. It is a subject that frequents our conversations, often. Yet beyond all you list, I do not think calling for public penance "is a bit much." I say this as a Lutheran (for a little while yet, as God may decide) who loves the Roman Catholic Church: Something more must be done, some deeper evidence, some greater gesture in recognition that this is a time for an extraordinary summons to penitential renewal. I do not share your opinion there is any such thing as "a bit much" in this context.
I did not say the claims of the papacy were based on the virtues of the pope. The virtue of the clergy and the pope matters, as you say, not a whit. We Lutherans have something of the same doctrine. The sacraments are the sacraments regardless of the piety or virtue or personal holiness of the one administering them. A fool or a knave, as Martin Luther famously uttered, ministers a valid sacrament: a great solace to myself through the years when I've been one or the other, or sometimes both. God protects the faithful in proclamation and sacramental celebration from worst we clergy can do. Still, since the claims of the papacy are not universally acknowledged as true throughout all churches, some care should be taken to avoid unnecessary offense to the separated brethren. Like it or not, love it or not, believe in it or not, the papacy is the only papacy we Protestants have. It must be one we may respect, and to the degree possible revere, even as we demur from its doctrinal assertions.
Peace and God bless.
Thank you for the reply. I do not disagree with anything you say in substance, but on some details . . .
I am aware of the prayers offered at mass and all the other good efforts of the last decade. A good part of my family through marriage is Roman Catholic. It is a subject that frequents our conversations, often. Yet beyond all you list, I do not think calling for public penance "is a bit much." I say this as a Lutheran (for a little while yet, as God may decide) who loves the Roman Catholic Church: Something more must be done, some deeper evidence, some greater gesture in recognition that this is a time for an extraordinary summons to penitential renewal. I do not share your opinion there is any such thing as "a bit much" in this context.
I did not say the claims of the papacy were based on the virtues of the pope. The virtue of the clergy and the pope matters, as you say, not a whit. We Lutherans have something of the same doctrine. The sacraments are the sacraments regardless of the piety or virtue or personal holiness of the one administering them. A fool or a knave, as Martin Luther famously uttered, ministers a valid sacrament: a great solace to myself through the years when I've been one or the other, or sometimes both. God protects the faithful in proclamation and sacramental celebration from worst we clergy can do. Still, since the claims of the papacy are not universally acknowledged as true throughout all churches, some care should be taken to avoid unnecessary offense to the separated brethren. Like it or not, love it or not, believe in it or not, the papacy is the only papacy we Protestants have. It must be one we may respect, and to the degree possible revere, even as we demur from its doctrinal assertions.
Peace and God bless.
4.9.2010 | 9:50pm
VR McCoy says:
Enough of defending the Church and the clergy. We all know and love our good clergy. We need to take care of the victims. Part of that is admission of wrongs by perpetrators. Another part is admission of mistakes made by those who thought pediphiles could by "cured." But the wounds of the victims must be our most urgent concern. Never mind that some opportunists will see the whole thing as a way to line their pockets. Take care of the victims and take measures to protect them and other children from any future injury.
The reputation of the Church will take care of itself if we are simply doing the next right thing.
The reputation of the Church will take care of itself if we are simply doing the next right thing.
4.9.2010 | 11:21pm
MarcoPo says:
Peter was a great saint and the bedrock of the Church, but if we lived back then would we really go on and on defending his betrayal of our Lord? Cardinal Ratzinger clearly failed sometimes in using his shepherd's crook against evil predators! Let him and the rest of us learn from that.
4.10.2010 | 10:12am
Scott W. says:
Peter was a great saint and the bedrock of the Church, but if we lived back then would we really go on and on defending his betrayal of our Lord?
That's not what is going on. It's more like The Jerusalem Times is insisting that it was actually John that took the 30 pieces of silver, and Peter was cc'ed a papyrus on it.
That's not what is going on. It's more like The Jerusalem Times is insisting that it was actually John that took the 30 pieces of silver, and Peter was cc'ed a papyrus on it.
4.10.2010 | 11:49am
Matt says:
I don't think one can continue to rely on the fair-mindedness of ordinary citizens to rise above the anti-Catholic bigotry we see from the liberal media - especially when the coverage is so relentless.
Honest and balanced journalism is simply not occuring with this issue in the mainstream media.
The attack dogs will not be called off anytime soon and I think much work needs to be done to expose those who hold the commanding heights of our media culture who are motivated by ideology and hatred towards the Church.
I don't believe this aspect of the media has been sufficiently exposed for all to see it.
Honest and balanced journalism is simply not occuring with this issue in the mainstream media.
The attack dogs will not be called off anytime soon and I think much work needs to be done to expose those who hold the commanding heights of our media culture who are motivated by ideology and hatred towards the Church.
I don't believe this aspect of the media has been sufficiently exposed for all to see it.
4.10.2010 | 12:47pm
John Woods says:
Thank you Bishop Conley for your defense of the Pope. I too do not see rationality in the latest news reports on this issue.
4.10.2010 | 1:35pm
M says:
An interesting commentary in defense of the Church as the people of God: http://onesimplemama.com/?p=561
4.10.2010 | 3:14pm
Nathaniel says:
Check the sexual activities of the journalists covering this scandal, investigate their personal biases and publish them and all will be made abundantly clear.
4.10.2010 | 8:52pm
stephen m. barr says:
Dear Russell Saltzman,
You misunderstood my use of the phrase "a bit much". It was not the quantity of penance you were calling for that I was calling a bit much, but the calling for it from the sidelines, as it were. Anyway, I appreciate your further comments.
Steve Barr
You misunderstood my use of the phrase "a bit much". It was not the quantity of penance you were calling for that I was calling a bit much, but the calling for it from the sidelines, as it were. Anyway, I appreciate your further comments.
Steve Barr
4.10.2010 | 11:27pm
gerry says:
Amen Nathaniel,
and why is it the press gives roman polanski a pass?
and why is it the press gives roman polanski a pass?
4.11.2010 | 1:59am
Kenneth Brown says:
Sadly, the Church's inept handling of child sexual abuse issues was pretty much identical in substance, of not form, to the way the same issue was/is handled by most religious and academic institutions I am aware. The only real difference I have discovered is in the available reach in providing cover afforded to the Catholic hierarchy because of the incomparable size of the Church's immense bureaucracy. While most school districts and Protestant denominations do indeed appear to have a visibly stricter zero tolerance policy on sexual abuse regarding minors, actual practice is, more often than not, much less noble. Because their local governing bodies, unlike the Catholic Church, are generally completely independent of each other, the more common way of handling abuse complaints in these organizations is to allow the perpetrator to quietly resign with a recommendation to another congregation or school district in lieu of legal action. I know personally know of five different instances in which this was done in order to “avoid the scandal and legal expense” involved in pursuing the incidents. I have also been told by school officials and protestant clergy that this practice is the preferred method of quietly handling such problems. The Church desperately needs to clean its own house, but believing the non-Catholic handling of this problem to be any better is naïve.
4.11.2010 | 2:19pm
Curt LaFond says:
I'm sorry to say that columns like this one by Bishop Conley are very much part of the problem. These "Yes, but..." retorts are not helpful to anyone.
Calling to mind the blood of the martyrs is especially galling when so many of the Church's wounds were inflicted by her own bishops, including the Holy Father himself.
St. Joseph, pray for the Church!
Calling to mind the blood of the martyrs is especially galling when so many of the Church's wounds were inflicted by her own bishops, including the Holy Father himself.
St. Joseph, pray for the Church!
4.11.2010 | 9:10pm
Manoj says:
I disagree with many of the things you have mentioned here. My blog has my comments/responses.
4.11.2010 | 11:34pm
V says:
If the Pope had something to confess, or somehow felt the need for public penance, I'm confident he'd have done so already. Don't get to thinking that you're more Catholic than the Pope. Anyone who's read one word he's written on the problem of clerical abuse - or pretty much anything he's ever written or spoke about ever - would realize that much of the present criticism is ridiculous and unwarranted.
Thank the Lord...I'd rather suffer through the current calumny 100 times over than play by the rules of the secular world.
Thank the Lord...I'd rather suffer through the current calumny 100 times over than play by the rules of the secular world.
4.12.2010 | 1:46pm
G. Douglas Eddy says:
To G. Douglas Eddy,
You speak of those who would "minimize" the responsibility of the Pope, when it has not been shown by anyone that the Pope had committed (as pope or as bishop) any actual misdeed for which responsibility should be taken. Implicitly this amounts to an accusation of wrongdoing. To make such an accusation without sufficient grounds is improper.
Mr. Barr,
The term "minimize" is a term often used by those of us who work with victims of abuse. It refers to the many ways in which the victim is often re-traumatized by others who do not take into account the seriousness of their charges and situation. I believe the Roman Church's response to date has to a good degree been one of sheltering the abusers and denying the structural error of the system's response to the victims. Are things significantly better today, yes. But even this past weekend new revelations give substance to my concerns.
What is needed is a system wide admission of complicity and shame, such that once for all the parties of past actions humbly request forgiveness from God and those harmed. It is a painful but necessary action. Anything less smacks of self-serving and a "minimization" of the pain and truth of the victims' suffering.
Is the Roman church the only offender. Absolutely NOT. All of us have been guilty of arrogance, co-opted denial, the sin of silence and inaction and the failure to be agents of Christ, not some institution. My point is that the structure of the Roman church is such that it takes too long for error to be admitted and corrected. Concern for the "larger" church is silly. It is Christ's church, not ours, and Christ can handle the criticism where it is false, and can honor the humiliation and repentance where it is needed.
As I read the comments here I see an awful lot of "my church, right or wrong." And a lot of ignorance of the nature of the issue. "Effeminante" seminarians? So we witch hunt those who we believe must be predators because of personal traits? The vast majority of abusers I have dealt with were very well known, very capable, articulate and often powerful people, whose identity as an abuser stunned those who knew them. Rarely did they fit some TV CSI portrayal.
I do not make charges. I urge pastoral care for those who have and continue to suffer terribly in any part of the Body of Christ.
You speak of those who would "minimize" the responsibility of the Pope, when it has not been shown by anyone that the Pope had committed (as pope or as bishop) any actual misdeed for which responsibility should be taken. Implicitly this amounts to an accusation of wrongdoing. To make such an accusation without sufficient grounds is improper.
Mr. Barr,
The term "minimize" is a term often used by those of us who work with victims of abuse. It refers to the many ways in which the victim is often re-traumatized by others who do not take into account the seriousness of their charges and situation. I believe the Roman Church's response to date has to a good degree been one of sheltering the abusers and denying the structural error of the system's response to the victims. Are things significantly better today, yes. But even this past weekend new revelations give substance to my concerns.
What is needed is a system wide admission of complicity and shame, such that once for all the parties of past actions humbly request forgiveness from God and those harmed. It is a painful but necessary action. Anything less smacks of self-serving and a "minimization" of the pain and truth of the victims' suffering.
Is the Roman church the only offender. Absolutely NOT. All of us have been guilty of arrogance, co-opted denial, the sin of silence and inaction and the failure to be agents of Christ, not some institution. My point is that the structure of the Roman church is such that it takes too long for error to be admitted and corrected. Concern for the "larger" church is silly. It is Christ's church, not ours, and Christ can handle the criticism where it is false, and can honor the humiliation and repentance where it is needed.
As I read the comments here I see an awful lot of "my church, right or wrong." And a lot of ignorance of the nature of the issue. "Effeminante" seminarians? So we witch hunt those who we believe must be predators because of personal traits? The vast majority of abusers I have dealt with were very well known, very capable, articulate and often powerful people, whose identity as an abuser stunned those who knew them. Rarely did they fit some TV CSI portrayal.
I do not make charges. I urge pastoral care for those who have and continue to suffer terribly in any part of the Body of Christ.
4.13.2010 | 10:22pm
Mark says:
There is one important reason, not mentioned by the bishop, why the press pays particular and unusual attention to the Church's moral failings. The Pope and the clergy constantly criticize the moral failings of the society at large. They act in a very grand way, morally speaking. The celibate clergy tells the laity how sex must be, what families must be, and what must be done about abortion. The American bishops feel free to comment on the heath care discussions in Washington. Our powerless nuns, who really work in the trenches, changing the bedpans and looking into the eyes of the poor, often disagreed with the bishops.
The point is that the Church pronounces from the moral mountaintop, again and again, and so....when it becomes indisputably clear that the Vatican itself historically placed its own interests above those of the victims of rogue priests, and changed its ways only because of the shaming reporting of the press, well...no one's going to cry for a Pope rather than a child. I think that what the press (and the laity) wants is simply some serious and heartfelt expression of regret from THE VATICAN'S about THE VATICAN'S behavior. The Vatican has a way of apologizing for what others did -- local priests, local bishops -- or accusing society -- secularization -- but refusing to acknowledge what it itself did. This moral pride and hubris is obvious and transparent to everyone outside the inside of the Church. Bishops really should get out more. The whining about an unfair press appears so weak (Christians should be tougher). The childish effort to say others did it too looks so immature (Catholics never buy that one). The soft self-pity, in this hard world. is so unwarranted in relation to true suffering. Actually, the comparison to the martyrs is grandiose and unseemly. All told, unworthy of a Christian faith that presumes to tell adults how to behave in the difficult real world where the spirit lives.
The point is that the Church pronounces from the moral mountaintop, again and again, and so....when it becomes indisputably clear that the Vatican itself historically placed its own interests above those of the victims of rogue priests, and changed its ways only because of the shaming reporting of the press, well...no one's going to cry for a Pope rather than a child. I think that what the press (and the laity) wants is simply some serious and heartfelt expression of regret from THE VATICAN'S about THE VATICAN'S behavior. The Vatican has a way of apologizing for what others did -- local priests, local bishops -- or accusing society -- secularization -- but refusing to acknowledge what it itself did. This moral pride and hubris is obvious and transparent to everyone outside the inside of the Church. Bishops really should get out more. The whining about an unfair press appears so weak (Christians should be tougher). The childish effort to say others did it too looks so immature (Catholics never buy that one). The soft self-pity, in this hard world. is so unwarranted in relation to true suffering. Actually, the comparison to the martyrs is grandiose and unseemly. All told, unworthy of a Christian faith that presumes to tell adults how to behave in the difficult real world where the spirit lives.
4.16.2010 | 2:16am
Dan says:
Actually, the conspiracy theory is just not on the mark. This is not a U.S phenomenon but a worldwide situation that first broke back in October of 2009 in Ireland with the release of the Murphy Report. In response to this report, the Vatican stated it will release a pastoral letter sometime in March of 2010. In the meantime, British and Irish newspapers started writing about the Murphy Report as well as the 10,000 or more orphans shipped to Australia to Catholic institutions and the abuse that followed. As the story became more prominent, people who suffered abuse became more bold to come forward to report abusive situations in the UK. Soon this started to snowball throughout Europe particularly in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. So the timing was not based on some media agenda but rather on the timing or lack there of and the reluctance of the Vatican to address the situation until March with Pope Benedict's pastoral letter to Ireland.
May I please ask a question? Do you see any relation between the fact that some Catholics have adapted their religion to the call for "social justice" and the current crisis regarding pedophiles?
In other words, is it not time for the Church to be more rigorously conservative in relation to it's traditional principles and beliefs?