There have been some good explanations of the Fr. Murphy case in regards to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and how then-Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the case. I think though that Jimmy Akin has the clearest and best presentation of the Fr. Murphy case I have seen. He lays out the facts as we know them along with the Church’s process and timeline of events. He also points out areas where the handling of the case could prudentially be criticized.
The hysteria that the New York Times generated in it’s piece which could be described as a “Pope hunt” go so far beyond the evidence that it is hard to see other than malice involved. Though Jimmy Akin also charitably addresses this aspect.
40 comments
Frankly, I’m tired of Church officials (like Absp. Dolan) complaining about the “biased press.” First, so what? Christ warned His followers that “the world” would fight them. Second, this tactic has *always* been used to deflect even legitimate criticism; it’s part of a larger strategy of assigning guilt to anyone who dares to question Catholic authority. Third, Church leaders can only control their own behavior. Had they done so, perhaps the New York Times would have nothing to write about.
Finally, and most importantly, the attitude of people like Absp. Dolan and George Weigel reflects institutional pride, not institutional repentence. What does God really want? He wants people to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with Him, as the Prophet Micah wrote.
When and how have Catholic leaders and their apologists ever done this concerning the sex-abuse mess, and all its attendant enabling?
Just the facts ma’am.
So let me get this straight, Joseph. Because some pervert homosexuals in the priesthood abused youths and many bishops were negligent in their handling of the cases, suddenly the 8th Commandment is null and void and people who aren’t actually guilty of anything have to sit silently while they are being slandered?
Bullshit.
I for one won’t be quiet when rabid secularists with feigned concern for children use those victims for their unrelated attack on the Church because they hate Her teachings. And I will certainly be vociferous in my defense of our Holy Father who has done more than anyone in the Church to rid us of the filth.
Fr. Thomas, the ecclesial judge on this trial also clarified things on his latest post. He also rip “NY Times” for doing sloppy journalism, but then again, most people know that by now.
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
I read the op/ed by Maureen Dowd in today’s paper. It made me so boiling mad! She has access to documents that tell the truth and yet she distorts it all around. Half-way through her article, you can see why. She is a dissenter who wants the Church to change to suit her own whims. I wrote a Letter to the Editor, but won’t hold my breath that it will be published. The paper in question is very very liberal.
P.S., Thomas S. , I referenced the 8th commandment, too.
Thomas S., the Eighth Commandment also applies to bishops and priests, as well. Just ask the Irish bishop who, as a young priest, got two young children to sign a document promising *not* to go the police. Is this how the Church is supposed to serve God? Or have “conservative” Catholics so focused on the papacy and the hierarchy that they’vs forgotten that God even exists
Auntie D., I hold no candle for Maureen Dowd. But I want you and Thomas S. to remember that God used the Assyrians and Babylonians to destroy the Israelites’ independence when the Israelites rejected their covenant with God (which was the condition for their independence in Canaan) and embracing idol worship.
Just remember these words…
“In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph”.
Count on it. Let them take their best shots…..
Joseph,
You’re transparent in your evasion of the substance of my post. Let me spell it out for you anyway. Neither AuntieD nor I ever made excuses for the abuses that occured. Period. In fact, I made a point of referencing the abusers and the bishops who failed to do the right thing. There’s plenty of blame to go around without the gross distortions, misrepresentations and lies concerning the Holy Father. And the sins of the former will not silence me on the slandering of the latter.
Do you understand now?
That is hate speech not hysteria.
If the Pope and certain bishops were pro-abortion and for gay marriage they’d not be subjected to detractions dredged up from 10 to 30 years ago. They’d be nominated to cabinet posts.
I don’t have time to list the NAMBLA supporters in the Obama White House.
So Joe D: that’s why you voted for Obama.
No good comes of cooperating in evil. No thanks for destroying my country. What will you catholic socialist justification geniuses do when you’ve completed the ruination of the economy and spent our last dollar?
Sorry for being blunt. I just can’t abide liars libelling the Pope and bishops (Joe D) to ease their consciences for voting for abortion.
There’s no excuse for these abuses and never has been. It’s good that these are coming to light and the bishops are being held accountable. What I find equally troubling, though, is the news that, apparently there are far more instances on record of public school teachers and staff abusing youngsters, yet these are discussed in the newspapers only occasionally and as discrete episodes, rather than as some institutional failing. And from the relentless, virtually non-stop coverage in the newspapers, one would take the impression that every fourth Catholic priest is a child predator, while nothing could be further from the truth.
I think some of these media types are fantasizing about Vatican paintings, statues and book collections one day having to be sold off to pay the court costs and money damages for the E.U. victims. “Let’s sue and bankrupt the Pope! Whoo-hoo!” But, unfortunately, the public schools are immune from lawsuit, so the attention on them? Eh, not so much.
What a bunch of phonies. Much of this publicity is not about “the children.” Hah! It’s about anti-Catholic bigotry and about money.
I can understand frustration at what defenders of the Pope feel are unfair attacks. What troubles me is the speed with which some race past the “abuse is bad” acknowledgement to express your outrage. The same level of outrage at the criminal priests and those who actively protected them is curiously missing. As for comparing the Church to public schools…has the Church lowered its expectations for itself that the misdeeds of public school teachers, who are decidedly not God’s emissaries, provide some sort of defense is sad. Thousands of children’s lives have been devastated – what is so hard about saying, very simply, “we failed you and are abjectly sorry…how can we help”.
mike,
The thing is we have been saying exactly that for years now since the priestly abuse scandal first broke out. We don’t have to reiterate this each and every time the subject is then addressed. There is no one in favore of abuse. No one says that since the rate of abuse is higher in schools that it provides any kind of actual defense of abuse in the Church- it only points out the double-standard of the media who don’t give a damn about abused children – if they did the endemic abuse in schools would be reported on. Priestly abuse is the greater scandal as it should be, but kids abused by others are just as abused.
That there has been such abuse which can never be excused does not mean they get a blanket license to ride all over the Church and to constantly engage in slander. There attack of the Pope does nothing to help children who have been abused. By politicizing this instead of actually caring about the abused they only do more damage.
Is this how the Church is supposed to serve God? Or have “conservative” Catholics so focused on the papacy and the hierarchy that they’vs forgotten that God even exists
So the actions of a minority now reflect on the majority? Those of us who are innocent must assume guilt because of the sins of others?
Check out Fr. de Souza’s response here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM
Reminds me a bit of when the media got caught rigging trucks with model rocket engines to prove they were fire hazards.
“As for comparing the Church to public schools . . .”
Adults everywhere deserve and have the right to know the truth and the whole truth about what has gone on in the Church and in the public schools. Victims of predation by public school employees deserve our concern and protection every bit as much as victims of predation by members of the clergy.
Unless, of course, your concern is not about with protecting children and restoring victims. If your concern is about protecting municipal employees’ unions and trial lawyers’ fees (who can’t reach into the public school’s coffers, but who are able to reach into the Church’s deep coffers), then you will be all about exposing these kinds of problems within the Church, but not so much about exposing the exact same abuses within public schools.
Makes perfect sense to me!
I can’t help noting how strangely appropriate it is that the Vicar of Christ should be falsely accused during the Easter Season. It’s as if he’s going through his own passion and uniting his suffering with Christ’s.
Several points:
1. No Man, I did not vote for the current occupant of the White House nor do I support abortion on demand. You are a judgemental ass whose words condemn you before God.
2. Thomas D., how does insisting that the Eighth Commandment applies to everybody evade the point of your post? Either God’s standards are for all or they are for none. Ecclesiastical leaders do not get a pass.
3. Amy P., have you ever heard of the expression, “a few bad apples can affect the whole barrel”?
4. Mike, you are absolutely correct! Let me add to what you have said: I don’t expect the New York Times or secular opponents of the Church to behave any differently; they will attach themselves to anything to promote their respective agendas. However, I do expect the Church to live up to its calling, at a bare minimum. No Man, Thomas D. and Amy P., can you say that the Church has done that throughout this mess?
Give it a rest, Joe. Everyone can see what I typed and they can see how you’re putting words in my mouth while ignoring what I actually said. In case you’ve forgotten (and didn’t bother to scroll back up and look again) this blog entry is about the slanderous reporting on POPE BENEDICT XVI. That is what I addressed. There’s no way you could still be confused about this.
There are valid points both ways. WE can never excuse the abuse nor cover-ups that resulted. However, when Israel was punished, it was because of their apostasy on a very wide scale. I, for one, do tire of being painted with a wide brush that all of us are either uncaught predators or that this predatory nature is endemic to the Catholic priesthood because we are celibate males. It does get old being treated as a veritable pinata. Do we tire of it? I and the overwhelming majority of priests would sooner put our hands into a running food processor than prey on our parishioners (or anyone else). Not that we priests should be slaves to well-wishes; but when 95% of what we hear is criticism, complaint about every thing we do ( mass is too slow, too fast, we can’t hear you, you talk too loud, fast) when the good we do is normally taken for granted, undervalued, or overlooked you might understand why we get a bit testy once in a while. Yes, yes…I know…our reward will be great in heaven…but that doesn’t excuse the fact that everytime someone defends us against anti-religious bashing they are told to knock it off. I knew this would be the case when I got into the preisthood..however, Joe, when you enter a hospital to do a communion call and while walking through the waiting room you see people pull the kids closer and give you a vile stare, you can lecture me on the ‘a few bad apples…”
Interesting discussion. I applaude Bishop Dolan for speaking from the pupit on this topic. We have allowed our children to be brainwashed into becoming sheep. Citizens who believe whatever is said on TV or in the papers. No one takes the time to investigate and seek the truth. A catchy slogan will get you far in politics. The abuse that has occurred and the coverups are inexecusable whether they were perpetrated by Catholics, protestants, teachers, or neighbors. Their fate awaits them. The Times is on a mission to help tear down the Catholic Church and we can not stand by and let that happen. The Catholic Church stands in the way of Obama’s agenda of baby killing and forced socialism. So the best way to overcome the Church is to divide the Church. Submarine catholics and Catholics, split em up
Go here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml
It seems we really don’t have a figure for public school sex abuse if a Hofstra scholar and a Wellesley scholar can come to very different figures. Bill Donahue said the other night on TV that he would put Catholic figures up against Jewish and Protestants figures anyday….but he then neglected to cite any or cite any studies. Errr….are we in a reverse abuse contest? We have the sacraments and the true faith.
They don’t. Our figure is not supposed to resemble that of any other group on earth.
Thomas S., my first comment dealt with the way Catholics in general; I do not believe you are so stupid that you cannot see that. As far as Benedict is concerned, he has two choices, regardless of what is or is not said about him. He can be mediocre and follow the course thatthe vast majority of his fellow bishops have followed. Or, he can be heroic. He can take up his cross, order other bishops to do the same on pain of excommunication and follow God come what may, regardless of what criticisms he might receive or even whether the current Church structure survives. How should Benedict respond? That’s between him and God; I certainly have no idea what he should do. But if you are going to pray, I suggest you pray that God gives the Pope the wisdom to discern God’s will and the power and strength to carry it out. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS, NO AGENDAS OR IDEAS ABOUT WHAT ANYBODY IS ENTITLED TO!
Fr. Bill P., I’m sorry you experience what you do when you take the Eucharist to the sick. But your experience exemplifies what I said: Those priests who have sullied the sanctity of their vocation have made it more difficult for good priests like you. I would hope that would make you more willing to speak out and fight (if you haven’t done so already, and I have no idea whether that’s true) against those priests and bishops who have dragged your vocation and God’s name through the mud, instead of complaining about how unappreciated you are.
Fr. Bill, you also raise a valid point about the OT Israelites which should be lost on either Thomas S. or anybody else commenting on this post. As you well know, the Israelites’ independence in Canaan depended on their obeidience to the covenant that God made with them. When Solomon’s kingdom split in two and became increasing idolatrous and ignorant of His laws, God allowed the idol-worshipping Assyrians and Babylonians to destroy Israel and Judah and enslave their citizens.
Think about that one for a moment: God allowed idol-worshipping nations to destroy a nation He designed to be His oracle to the world.
Now look at what’s going on around you: God is allowing secular entities that favor libertine sexual behavior to attack a Church that, effectively, has forgotten the standards to which God holds it.
In both cases, the irony is too tragic.
One more thing:
In I Samuel, the high priest Eli had two sons who stole more than their fair share of sacrifices and encouraged religious prostitution. Eli verbally warned his sons about their behavior and about the consequences before God but, otherwise, did nothing.
An unknown prophet later appeared to Eli. He told Eli that his sons would be killed, that God would strike Eli dead once the Phillistines captured the Ark of the Covenant and that his branch of Levi’s family would be cut off from the priesthood. All this happened.
God demands actions, not mere words. God will not tolerate anybody—especially those who claim authority in His name—from dragging His reputation, His character and His people through the sewer. Since I’m writing this on Maundy Thursday, I strongly suggest that you contemplate the full weight of what I’m saying.
My Parish is near Philadelphia and the Phila. DA’s Office made a pretty good investigation of the matter a few years ago.
I remain struck by the fact that the vast majority of the allegations relate to offenses against teenage males and there was a pretty steep drop-off in offenses during the 1980s.
This is relevant to the present post because the drop-off corresponds to the ascension of JPII and then Cardinal Ratzinger. Without details, it is impossible for me to assess whether the drop-off was because of affirmative actions of the Papacy or an accident of history. I prefer to think that it was the former but it could be that fewer religious led to fewer allegations.
I am not sure what to make of the fact that such a high percentage of the alleged acts were by apparently homosexual religious against boys. I have long speculated that the strong bias against homosexuality during earlier periods of our culture made the Church a haven for those who were strongly attracted to members of the same sex. A similar phenomenon occurs now with Moslem families sending their homosexual sons abroad to preserve the family’s honor in their community.
My point is only this… IF (and I humbly acknowledge that I have no evidence to support my speculation) homosexuals were drawn to the Church during earlier periods in order to hide their inclination, I find it easy to imagine that their “calling” was not true or deep. To such a one, it would probably be simply a “way out” and, like all “ways out,” once the novelty of the situation wore off and was replaced by the arduous and thankless life of a religious, anger and resentment at being “trapped” might very well lead to depression, mental illness, and violence against themselves, the Church, and their charges.
Again, while this makes sense to me, I am not under the illusion that my speculation is particularly illuminating or even right… But then, my speculation is surely as valuable as that of the millions who condemn our faith and our shepherds without caring enough about those who practice the Faith to do research.
David, you question whether your speculations are illuminating but quite frankly light years ahead of most. That is, I’ve been told that the average homosexual “coming of age” story told to relay the glories of gay sex involves an older man. To wit: few recognize the special pleading that essentially says as long as it is anyone but a priest, it’s just hunky dory. At another combox, a non-Catholic lent some support with, “I find it laughable that people who have no foundation for any moral ethic whatsoever are suddenly outraged by sexual immorality.”
Joe, from whence comes your pathological obsession with making clerics pay? It’s the only fire in your stove. It’s the only issue about which you write (off the paidcheck). Were you abused by a cleric? Have you notified your neighbors about your statistical danger to their children?
Do your editors know about your history? What should happen to you if an accusation surfaces? How long should you keep your job and your freedom?
Garuda,
Your response is way over the top and lacks any semblance of Christian charity. Your comment mocks the pain and suffering of the victims of abuse and is unbecoming.
Perhaps this is a pointed hypothetical gone awry?
From the last line, it sounds like you are asking Mr. D’Hippolito to imagine the effects of groundless accusations suffered by the huge number of religious who have served well and honorably. If so, then I agree with the sentiment. Indeed, my strongest objection to changing the statutes of limitations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in order to reach abuse allegations that target far remote events and persons, many of whom are dead is that doing so could have a catastrophic effect on non-profits throughout our state since one would have to be constantly on guard against potential litigation that would not be initiated until thirty or more years had passed. (In this nightmare scenario, I imagine an innocent scoutmaster who, though ailing and with failing memory, is asked to defend against a suit by a man whom he has not seen in thirty years – being required to give details of events long past and, being unable to contradict the plaintiff’s account, having his reputation destroyed and his assets forfeited.)
If this was your point, I am afraid you shot far of the mark. Forgive me for being so unkind as to say so.
David1787, thank you for your defense. I assure you, Garuda was not trying to devise the sort of hypothetical you imagine. He is engaged in the “orthodox” Catholic’s typical tactic of blaming people making criticism and not addressing the pervasive corruption w/in the Church’s ranks.
Garuda refuses to realize that a God who “gave” Peter the “Keys of the Kingdom” holds such an institution to higher standards. Remember, Garuda, to whom much is given, much is required. Besides, God hates the exploitation of the innocent, especially by those who claim to hold authority in His name.
Read Ezekiel 34 and Matthew 23. We are seeing those passages come alive right before our eyes.
Garuda, your remarks — indeed, your ecclesial idolatry — condemn you before a holy, righteous God.
One more thing, David 1787.
If the honest and innocent priests and bishops want to fight, they should fight against those among their number who have dragged God’s name and His people through the sewer!
Mr. D’Hippolito,
Your reply to Garuda and the comments otherwise posted here are no more charitable. You should understand that I am not and do not agree with you on many points. Nor do I intend to engage in a tit-for-tat in the comments section of a blog that I enjoy and would prefer to be welcome on. Suffice it to say that the over-the-top anti-clericalism that you are spewing is far from my experience as a Catholic. Your intent and reasons for laying out such a mean-spirited and scripture laden rant is your concern alone. Some soul searching may be in order.
As for the last comment, it presumes that the good and honest of our Church are NOT and HAVE not been fighting evil. Nothing you have said and no scriptural reference illustrates this.
I posited before that the allegations fell off during the 1980s and that there is an interesting junction in history between JPII’s reign and, by extension, the service of then Cardinal Ratzinger. I am no more sure of my thesis now than I was two days ago; but let me go one step farther…
The Church has settled thousands of suits. Many of those have been for cases brought decades after the alleged offenses and for which the alleged offender is either dead or waning. Did the offenses occur? We will never know because the attorneys for the various dioceses advised settling such offenses for as little as $5,000 USD. It was a good call, in my opinion, to settle and move on but it raises an important question: how many of the allegations that the likes of Voices of Faithful hold up actually occurred?
I haven’t the time to compose such a list but, before I condemned the Church and turned my back on Her as you seem to have done, this is a question I would have sought an answer to. I suggest that it would be proper to obtain the list of alleged offenses in your diocese. Then pull from it all of those that are listed but do not involve minors – a distinction utterly lost on VOF in their hate-filled campaign to destroy the Church. Next, pull off the allegations filed after the religious that was purportedly involved was dead unless there was a corresponding Church investigation that bore up the allegation. What is left represents the more-likely-than-not group of allegations that is worth getting upset with the Church about.
The hardest part is going to be doing research on the group that remains since the stories are likely to be heart-wrenching and we are called to charity. Such stories may well stir up anger but it is well to remember that Christ showed no anger towards Judas for his utter betrayal.
Until and unless you have gone into these matters to such a depth, your anger, your seething rage, is inappropriate to a Catholic and does more to divide and dishonor than you imagine.
Again, the greatest calling that we have is to charity. It is not boastful and does not seek offense. It does not use the gifts of intelligence to cause injury or to “score points.” Charity, brother, more than anything else, makes a man a Christian.
Dear Mr. D’Hippolito,
It is not clear to me how your response to Garuda was more charitable than Garuda’s response was to you.
You seem to be saying that the Church has made no honest efforts to root out corruption, that our “honest and innocent priests and bishops” have closed their eyes and been silent. I am not sure that other than the prejudiced and jaundiced views of the wider world evidence this.
I remain curious about JPII’s and then Cardinal Ratzinger’s roles in the significant falling off of allegations during the 1980s. Again, I do not presume to know the truth in this matter as there may be more than one analysis that fits the facts. I want to believe that JPII and then Cardinal Ratzinger manfully took the helm and steered a new course.
To restate my prior thesis, I wonder if the social stigmas against homosexuality through the 1970s “pushed” individuals without a true calling to join the religious life. I imagine that one with a strong same-sex attraction might find the idea of a religious “calling” very attractive and, having become a religious, might be driven to madness and sin by the ever-active hand of Satan.
Your anger at the actions of those with the authority to have removed abusive religious is right and proper but it must be tempered by humility, patience, and kindness. We are called to charity and nothing in your statements indicates that you are moved by that most blessed of virtues.
Has there been in our lives a time when our religious needed us more? If not, then how is the burning anger that joins the flames of sectarian and religious hatred of our Faith in any way righteous?
I fear that your anger burns too brightly for you to see.
David1787, when you have been attacked in a vile manner by somebody who doesn’t have the courage to sign his real name (like Garuda and No Man), you fight. As far as anger goes, Christ was angry at the exploitation of the faithful by the Temple moneychangers — so much so that he overturned their tables and fashioned a whip to force them out! How much “charity” could be found in those actions?
Besides, since Christ also said, “Be angry and sin not,” then Christ certainly did not sin by his actions.
I, for one, am sick and tired of Catholics soft-pedaling and making excuses for pervasive corruption among the leadership. Of course, we must stand by the innocent clergy and religious. We do that by eradicating those who would drag God’s Name and His people through the sewer.
Dear Mr. D’Hippolito,
Meaning no disrespect, I don’t think Christ’s anger at the money-changers can be used to justify a lack of charity towards those who offend us as individuals.
Christ was righteously angry at those who offended God and took advantage of the poor and weak. He did not upturn their tables because they offended him by remark or deed.
A closer parallel to the chain of events in this comments thread would be the garden at Gethsemane where Christ stayed the hands of his disciples from righteously shedding blood on their Lord’s behalf. Again, at the court of the Sanhedrin, could a more righteous anger have been delivered by the Lord on High than to have smote everyone there? So too at the court of Pilate and at the court of Herod, Christ withheld righteous anger and did not lift a finger or the Word to rebut or condemn. This is true through the carrying of the cross and the Crucifixion itself. At each and every turn, though righteous anger was justified, it was withheld out of obedience and charity. Christ affirmed charity as the proper response to even individual oppression when he asked God to “forgive them for they know not what they do.”
You invoke “righteous anger” to justify a lack of charity for your own sake, not His. It just isn’t the same and I am not aware of any point in the New Testament or in our tradition where anger and striking out for offenses directed at ourselves is just or right.
I’d like to move on though for there is a much more interesting statement that I would like clarification on.
You said, “I… am sick and tired of Catholics soft-pedaling and making excuses for pervasive corruption among the leadership. Of course, we must stand by the innocent clergy and religious… by eradicating those who would drag God’s Name and His people through the sewer.” Here you appear to be speaking much closer to your deepest feelings on the matter than at any other point in the discourse above. Indeed, once set free from the mechanism of bolstering your feelings with scripture, your thoughts seem to resonate more completely.
And it is on these points that I want clarification.
You appear to be saying: 1) many Catholics are not interested in “justice” and seek, instead, to move past the offenses without penance, 2) the best way to aid the innocent is to root out the corrupt, and 3) justice demands the destruction of those who brought scandal to the Church. Do I have it right?
I’d rather know I am on the right track and mull over your words a bit before responding, so it would be helpful if you would clarify or confirm.
David1787, you are right on the first two points. As far as the “destruction of those who brought scandal to the church,” that is God’s business; unless they repent, they will have effectively condemned themselves. Those priests who sexually abused the innocent and the bishops who protected them should be brought to canonical trial and, if guiilty, excommunicated. If any have been convicted in a secular court, and the evidence is overwhelming, they should be excommunicated.
I don’t think your analogy to Gethsemane is accurate. Remember, Christ declared that “I lay down my life; nobody takes it from me.” That reflects his divine nature and his role as creator (see John 1). Christ allowed anything to happen to him after his arrest not out of a sense of charity, but out of obedience to his divinely designated role as the ultimate atonement for human sin. The same Christ who acted in that fashion is the same Christ who overturned the moneychangers’ table in judging their exploitation of the innocent.
As far as my own “lack of charity” goes, David1787, one doesn’t need to be an anointed prophet to see what’s happening and speak out. Perhaps one should remember that “charity” toward the unrepentant can involve contempt for the innocent — and for God. In the Church’s case regarding this atrocity, it all too often has. Read 1 Corinthians 5 to see what I’m talking about.
Mr. D’Hippolito,
With regards to the subject of loving those who persecute us and showing charity towards those who oppose us, I don’t accept your analysis. It strikes me as being in direct opposition to what Christ explicitly called us to be and do. More to the point, I don’t think those whose comments you find objectionable are the one’s you now identify as being unworthy of charity – those who are responsible for the complained-of abuse.
I thank you for the clarification. I read your comments and thought them over during my train rides.
You state that “the ‘destruction of those who brought scandal to the church’ … is God’s business” but your call to hold them accountable is nothing less than a call for their utter ruin. From where I sit, those responsible for the abuse SHOULD face utter ruin in the eyes of man. There is, therefore, no reason to run from the third point. I think we are in agreement as to the punishment that is appropriate to those crimes.
I think that it is true that many Catholics want to move past these scandals but I do not share the view that we are not interested in justice. It is my view that the Church in America has faced the inquiry, paid a huge price, and is now rebuilding.
I put it to you, sir, what more can the Church in America do that She has not done?
She has created a robust and general regime for protecting children, has paid out on even the most questionable of allegations, defrocked priests, turned over records to civil authorities, and cooperated in prosecutions.
When will it be enough? Can you see why we want to move on? Can you see why we want our children to be able to see a newspaper without it directly calling on them to abandon their faith? Are we really so callous in your eyes as to be unworthy of sympathy and empathy?
Finally, the best way to aid the innocent may be to root out the corrupt but the parable of the enemy sowing weeds among the wheat comes to mind. If, as I have postulated, the Church in America is coming out on the other side of these scandals, doesn’t it make sense to affirm our support for our religious who have suffered so long and deeply? Surely justice demands that one be as passionate in support of the innocent as in condemnation of the guilty?
In the end, nothing I can say will assuage your anger. Whether righteous or not is between you and God but you should not interpret our desire for peace and wholesome unity with our religious as cowardice. Standing with our religious may be the bravest thing in this world right now.
David1787, you talk about the church in the United States. I don’t deny that the church has done what you say. But why do you believe that “standing with our religious” contradicts fighting the corruption in their midst — especially since that corruption drags the entire vocation into the sewer?
I’d also like to know why you feel so offended at legitimate anger about legitimate corruption? Why do you feel so offended at a God that demands the redeemed to act like they’re redeemed? Should we just edit out everything St. Paul said about grace not justifying more sin? Wouldn’t St. Paul’s words apply at least as strongly (if not more so) to those who hold authority in God’s name?
As far as the church in the U.S. goes, I’d like to call your attention to the comment threads on the blogs at the National Catholic Register’s site, or on Father Dwight Longnecker’s site. The emphasis is on attacking the Church’s critics and defending the ecclesiastical organization at all costs — even at the cost of the loss of moral perspective. I should add, in fairness, that the posters on Fr. Longnecker’s blog have changed their tune.
But, all too often, Catholics believe that the hierarchy and clergy are holier than laity merely by occupying their respective offices. That is clericalism in a nutshell. Add to that the view of priests primarily as confectors of the sacraments, and the sacraments’ fundamental role in Catholic spiriutality, and you have the perfect recipe for the sense of entitlement that many in the clergy and hierarchy feel — and that many in the laity seem all too willing to concede to them. That also explains the fundamental sense of inferiority Catholics feel in relation to their clergy and laity.
Those factors, I believe, dictated the lack of action on the part of many Catholics before the sex-abuse crisis broke in 2002.
Besides, this isn’t solely an “American” problem. We now know that it affects the faith in Ireland, Brazil, Germany, Austria, Mexico and who-knows where else.
One more thing, David 1787. “Charity” toward the unrepentant can involve contempt for the innocent — and for God. In the Church’s case regarding the dual atrocities of clerical sex abuse and episcopal enabling, it all too often has. Read 1 Corinthians 5 to see what I’m talking about.
Forgiveness and consequences are not mutually exclusive when it comes to justice on Earth.