I did wonder when this statement would be translated from the Italian into English.
Pope Benedict HAS NEVER made it a secret that he thinks the Jews should believe in Jesus. In fact back in the day when he was merely Cardinal Ratzinger he openly told the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem that he could not endorce a join statement with him that said Jesus is the way to salvation for Gentiles but Jews don't need Him because they already have a covenant with God. Ratzinger called that view "Heresy".
I love Pope Benedict.
He is as philosemitic as John Paul the Great if not more so.
This is really old news, the article having been published well over a month ago; I'm surprised the secular press did not pick it up.
I watched and protested as the institutional Church in Philadelphia auctioned off its inner city assets (those assets romantically built by the Irish maids, etc.). It seemed to function just fine without my advice. I was a Boy Scout leader in the mid '80's and '90's and dealt with the whole mess-and BSA took a huge financial hit. Purged the local organization of the predators and saw how to develop a youth protection plan. The Scouting-priest predator problem was the biggest problem. The Church hid these folks.
In the 1980's and 1990's, the Church at this time was playing to its strong hand-high paid attorneys rigging the system to its favor, working the system well making the system work for its power. And it lost, fending this stuff off for years, it is losing. Paying attorneys to debase and humiliate the accusers.
I mourn many things about the losses of the past 25 years, and the financial disasters of the Church currently are one of them. But I have extended my help and had it smacked back. I have protested the loss of the Sacramental Presence in the inner city Philadelphia and had universal clerical scorn, despite 100's in protest marches.
I will not particpate in the current histrionics of conservatives who bleat that "they are out to destroy the Church." From where I sit, the object of "they" has been the leaders of the American Church, the diocesan monsignors who hold the high positions, who denied the existence of this problem and the ordained heirarchy.
"They" are out to destroy the Church. This is true. I have no illusions about this. But to some extent those I accuse above have already destroyed much.
I have no illusions about justice with any of this. Many seek mere revenge. But it is a game played politically by folks like Chaput. I fail to believe he seeks justice, just don't his stuff.
The topic leaves me cold, uninterested. Chaput pursues a game of PR and politics. He has new devils and is testing "speaking points." He needs to score politically and seeks to shift attention to the evil public school system.
Now the Church speaks about seeking justice. It sounds hypocritical to do so now. Chaput's argument that statutes of limitations exist to serve justice and that the liability really should be financially limited is intellectually credible. He just has no personal credibility in this matter however. As little as Mahoney and the rest on this matter.
This is just politics and power played out by people higher than I and they want to seduce me, inflame me, by the cry: "The public schools are worse" and "They are destroying the Church." I mourn the loss of the all the "things" and programs.
Here's something to help the Church through this crisis: pray, fast, and fess up to your crimes right away-and don't let it happen again (Bruskewitz take note). The last two points comes from the example of McNeil, Inc (the makers of Tylenol). And the catechism. But McNeil did it better than the promulgators of the catechism.
Ah, yes, it's always just about power, Daniel.
What a sad, sick view of things you have.
The difference between Mass in the Y and Mass at most churches built in the last 40 years will be marginal.
PVO
"I mourn many things about the losses of the past 25 years, and the financial disasters of the Church currently are one of them. But I have extended my help and had it smacked back. I have protested the loss of the Sacramental Presence in the inner city Philadelphia and had universal clerical scorn, despite 100's in protest marches."
Wow! The folie de grandeur at play is overpowering. In other words, it's all about you and your hurt feeling. Poor, poor Dan Conway. "If 'they' only would have listened to MY advice. But they didn't, so ecclesia delinda est."
Daniel.
Of course - its a conspiracy by the bishops to destroy their own Church???
A kingdom divided cannot stand.
Its done pretty well for the last 2000 years, and don't think that this sort of problem has not happened before - maybe not in the US, but certainly in Europe centuries ago, and other places.
Why is Daniel's position 'sad and sick'?
It's a position, to which he has a right, and a right to be taken seriously.
He may be sad (and so are most of us), but he doesn't sound sick to me. Argue the points.
The Church isn't walled off from the rest of the culture, not even in a monastery. Why should it have been immune to the decay around it? It's a decay that has been spiritual, and cultural, and intellectual, and moral.
There is a core which is sound, and what we have and will have has to be built around that. But there's no use complaining about our enemies being enemies, or being fair. This is war, and all's fair in it.
I was talking about the war against us with a priest I know, and he said, in so many words, if there is a war, I know where it's being organized, and it isn't in this world.
That other world doesn't play fair. Get used to it.
Patrick,
Daniel's giving you his experience. What else is he supposed to do? Calling it 'folie de grandeur' doesn't make it go away.
Pavel,
Why should his position be taken seriously when it amounts to narcissitic whining and glee at the apparent destruction of the Church? It's not a serious position. He's making no argument, neither am I.
I simply made the observation that if all he can see is tainted by the lens of "political power struggle" and "the bishops deserve what they get", that is both a sad position and a sick position. It is not consonant with the Aposotlic Faith, our duty in charity, or obedience.
Of course our opponenents don't play fair. They wouldn't be "principalities and powers" if they did. They'd still be on the side of the angels. I'd be disappointed if they tried to play fair.
Daniel is correct to underscore the difference between a purely legal strategy for handling these legal claims and the ecclesiological/penitential strategies that have served the Church well in ages past. When bishops rely primarily on motions to quash, gag orders, discovery gamesmanship, and legally-vetted press releases and policy statements over the wisdom of the Saints and Martyrs of the Church, I tend to think they're suffering from some kind of amnesia. No one here is derogating from their legitimate episcopal and Magisterial authority. We're not Protestants who can't distinguish the man from the office. We're trying to be mindful that the role of bishops is the care of souls, not just property. No one here is saying Church property and funds don't matter. But there is a battle going on here against powers and principalities that makes our court battles look like chump change, and I'm haven't seen much evidence to say that our bishops are all that respectful of this "unseen warfare."
Haloscan swallowed my comment again.
In short, let's skip the psychoanalysis of one another and stick with what we hope are real world facts.
Flambeaux, I believe St. Paul would have equated bloodthirsty lawyers, journalists, and anti-Catholics with the "flesh and blood" of Eph. 6, not with "principalities and powers," which is reserved for the devil, his minions, and the realm of sin. The point being that fair or not, their threats and methods should not determine the way the Church responds to this crisis.
From the Archbishop of Moscow in a recent interview:
"'Archbishop Kondrusiewicz: 'Of course there are difficulties and one cannot say there are none and that everything is going very well. I think the subject must be viewed from a more realistic perspective. '"
Go and do likewise.
They wouldn't be "principalities and powers" if they did. They'd still be on the side of the angels.
I always thought principalities and powers were types of angels.
And so what are we going to do about it?
Mass at the Y!
Paper plates!
Dixie cups!
The sky is falling!
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the reality is far less dire.
As Mark said yesterday, there have been 10,667 abuse claims in the past 53 years, including ones that have already been settled or otherwise disposed of. Let's say that each one settles for $1,000,000 - a staggeringly high sum. Some are going to be bogus, some are going to settle for more, and most are going to settle for far less. That's $10.7 billion.
There are 65 million Catholics in America, and weekly Mass attendance is running about about 33%. So at least 22 million Catholics are in the pews every week.
So each *weekly Mass attending* Catholic's share of the settlement is $486. So for the next five years, if each Catholic put TWO MORE DOLLARS in the collection basket per week, that would cover it.
Now, I can come up with well over two more dollars per week. And *all* of us, including self-described "fat guy" Mark, probably can afford to give up one Starbucks coffee or bag of chips or slice of pie or whatever it is that's making us fat.
Two dollars per week. That's it.
This is my 17th year as a Catholic, and I have seen things that made my hair stand on end, and still do. But I see them both inside and outside the Church.
Face it: This can be a bizarre and wrong-headed species, often not very bright but entirely too clever, and Our Lord didn't come among us because He wanted to teach us how to use the right fork for fish.
We are full of charity and spite, love and hate, peace and violence.
Therefor, we will do the best we can, offering our prayer and service to the Church and to one another.
Love God and one another - or at least try.
That's what we're going to do about it. What else can we do?
So its clear:
I do not question Chaput's important teaching role in the Church, both by normal magisterial functions, as well as the important national voice he retained in the last elections. I am not sure where a thought of glee in the loss of the elements of the institutional Church come from. I actually feel little about this, but want to offer a larger, longer perspective than conservative reactionary views that can be evoked by mentioning the phrase "trial lawyers."
The current legal, legislative response is not about justice, Mr. Flambeaux. I do not see the current struggle for and against the assault by trial lawyers as such. This is not about "the bishops getting what they deserve." This is the continuation of a story we are all now tuned in to. This is the first scene of a new chapter of 50 year old story.
In the last chapter, the accusers were in court trying to get some story out that they could not do, because the system was rigged against them. In that chapter, the Church lawyers approached the bishop, described their strategy, including defaming the accusers, and the bishop silently gives a nod of his head, approving the strategy. This chapter ends in the upset of the Boston court system and its access to the archdiocesan secrets.
The new chapter begins with the accusers now smelling blood initiating a frenzy, playing the same game as the Church lawyers did in the previous story. Only now the bishop has a voice and cries that these pagans will destroy the Church if they had their way. And this is where it leaves off.
The question Mr. Shea brings up is the role of Church as mediator, and how does this moderate and mediate our approach and vision of this crude imitation of justice occurring in the courts now. (Cue Chaput with some statistics about public schools.) This is a far more compelling argument to retain the integrity of the largesse of the institutional Church.
It fails in practice, though. As a mediating presence, the Church spent an enormous effort in Detroit under Szoka in the late '80's, in Chicago under Bernadin in the early '90's and then Philadelphia under Bevilacqua in the early to mid '90's to reduce its presence dramatically in its most vulnerable areas-reducing not only its "mediating" aspects such as schools and food banks but most especially its Sacramental Presence in its these dioceses' most bloody and violent areas. In an attempt to look fiscally and demographically like the Episcopal Church-white, suburban, and wealthy, the Church in these areas closed its inner city parishes.
The Church where I come from has already chosen to decrease its "mediation." One can argue that, of course, this can be reduced further. I can only agree. But it is expected now. And I expect that the inner city parishes will be reduced greatly to support the suburban areas, and if the reason wasn't this travesty of justice, it would be the vocation reductions, or the decreased donations that a shaky economy has produced, or something.
I like the "mediator" argument better, but note that the Church has chosen to abandon this role in many ways in recent history.
That *was * my 17th year. Going on 18.
Daniel.
You need to differentiate between "The Church" - the ENTIRE body of Christ, and the diocese of the various bishops you criticise.
You see, none of the problems - or only in microcosm - exist in my diocese. My bishop is the 'Vicar of Christ' in my diocese as appointed by our Holy Father, who in turn is the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Generaralising is your flaw.
Anyway, stick to your faith, and criticise constructively - the sitiations you quote are generally 10 to 20 years old.
We've heard the Pope speak of the 'Church' recently, and it wasn't to say that all is well.
Another personal flaw is telling other people what their flaws are. 'Narcisistic' for instance. What about 'smug'? And 'patronizing'?
"How much filth there is in the Church, even among those who, in the priesthood, should belong entirely to Him. How much pride, how much self-sufficiency."
Pope Benedit XVI
Good Friday Mass, 2005
Who, me? He must mean you.
That's what Adam and Eve said. It's the snake's fault.
Plus ca change...
My trouble with the Archbishop's take (and a fortiori, Mark's) is that the bishops have labored mightily to convince the world that this is the only language they understand. Having succeeded, they now complain of the foreseeable results.I don't minimize the effect of the possible destruction of the Church's many charitable activities. It will be a major moral and social disaster--one that will harm me personally, for I too am one of the People of God and I benefit from their workings. Nor do I deny the manifest tendency of our tort laws to pander to the base and vicious among us--in effect, to fight the Devil with fire. (I have supported their reform for years, well before the bishops were targeted.) But I still think that if these things come about, the *primary* blame must be fixed on those who committed and abetted the horrors, not those who sought to exploit them later.
But I still think that if these things come about, the *primary* blame must be fixed on those who committed and abetted the horrors, not those who sought to exploit them later.
It does have a whiff of the patricide perpetrator begging the court for mercy on the ground of him being an orphan. If it were only going to effect the perpetrators, enablers, and cover-up-ers, I would agree.
The problem is it will also effect those who are as blameless as the victims. For that reason, some restrictions are in order. Many states, and the SCOTUS, recognize that you cannot punish a wrongdoer corporation by punitive damages to the extent you punish it out of existence, recognizing that it would also hurt many innocent investors who had nothing to do with the alleged conduct. A reasonable balance needs to be reached between compensation and protection of the non-culpable constituents of the institution. One thing I would consider is a mandatory class action for determination of punitive damages, if any. That way, the punitive portion would only be done once, and not punish the institution over and over for the same conduct, with possible inconsistent results.
Also, while spiritually the "Church" is one, that does not necessarily mean legally it is one. In a legal sense, what is the institution being held liable? The particular parish/school/etc. where the offending conduct occurred? The particular diocese?
One thing I would consider is a mandatory class action for determination of punitive damages, if any.
There's a real problem with imposing punitive damages at all on the Church as an institution--which will have the effect of making the faithful and others served by the Church bear that burden--rather than on the guilty people who actually need to be punished (i.e., the perps themselves and the individual church officials who knowingly or negligently abetted them).
The great majority of abuses were committed by parish priests, so it is the diocese which will be held corporately responsible, and with good reason.
Still can't manage to get upset about this: the downtown old ethnic parish churches are the ones which will be liquidated to pay for this (on the basis of valuation per square foot relative to weekly contributions from parishioners), and these are precisely the ones which the bishops have abandoned in favour of their gymnasium-style multipurpose buildings in the suburbs.
They have chosen this path; who are we to argue with our shepherds?
The claim of justice on Chaput's side here is that we ought to subject government institutions to the same liability, rather than letting the government schools off the hook for things for which we wish to punish the dioceses. But the dioceses and bishops have erred grievously here, and the taste of much correction seems inevitable.
PVO
mulopwepaul:
I agree that the state cuts itself a mighty good deal on limiting its liability. I've always perceived sovereign immunity as at best a necessary evil, and I've seen many cases in which the evil is more obvious than the necessity. I'm not sure that the bishops should be given comparable immunity on that account though. It smacks of justifying one evil by another.
If you want meaningful money damages, the Dioceses are the only place to go. The perps are not rich, even when you don't have to settle for suing an estate.
There's a real problem with imposing punitive damages at all on the Church as an institution--which will have the effect of making the faithful and others served by the Church bear that burden--rather than on the guilty people who actually need to be punished (i.e., the perps themselves and the individual church officials who knowingly or negligently abetted them).
That has always been a problem with punishing a "corporate" or "institutional" defendant, rather than the actual officer, directors, agents, etc. that committed the particular conduct. But American tradition has not seemed too concerned about that (just ask Ford (the Pinto fiasco) Exxon (recall Valdez?) and Merrell Dow (Dalkon Shield, I think)). Right or wrong, it seems a part of our legal tradition.
Why should we pay attention to you when you can't even define church/abuse/works of mercy?
That has always been a problem with punishing a "corporate" or "institutional" defendant, rather than the actual officer, directors, agents, etc. that committed the particular conduct.
The big difference between a corporate defendant and a charitable defendant (such as a parish or a diocese) is that the burden of a damages judgment against a corporation falls ultimately on the shareholders, who ultimately own the corporation and (at least indirectly) have the power to supervise the actual wrongdoer and who benefitted from his services, while the burden of a judgment against a charity falls on the beneficiaries of that charity (be in the faithful in the pews, the poor in the soup kitchens, or the pupils in the schools).
Also, I might add that the entire rationale for punitive damages is to deter wrongdoing. For that to work, the burden has to fall on the actual wrongdoer. When punitive damages are imposed on an employer under a theory of respondeat superior (rather than under a theory that the employer was himself negligent or guilty of wilful misconduct), then they cannot be justified either as deterring wrongful action or as compensating victims (since punitive damages are by definition over and above what's necessary to provide compensation).
On re-reading my post, I realize I should have been clearer: the justification for imposing damages against a corporate employer (and not on a charitable employer) is that, in a corporation, those who benefit from an employee's actions are the same ones who ultimately have control over those actions. That's not the case with a charity (or with the government, I might add, which is why we used to have charitable as well as governmental immunity from tort liability).
That was me at 3:25 pm (and at 3:20 pm).
If you want meaningful money damages, the Dioceses are the only place to go.
Not true. If compensation is our overarching goal, so that it's more important to see to it that victims are compensated than to make sure that the compensation comes out of the pockets of the injurers, then we could compensate victims with tax money.
The tort principle engaged, with which I have difficulty arguing, is that the dioceses as corporate bodies were both culpably negligent, supervisory of the parish priests responsible for the abuse and currently have full benefit of access to diocesan funds (whether or not they have heretofore used those funds for their personal consumption).
The punitive damages would therefore be taken from the diocese as punitive of the negligence of the bishops.
Like I said, it's hard to give the bishops a pass and then get upset about this.
Different standards for government sponsored abusers are wrong, but from a legal point of view the bishops control the assets of their dioceses, and those assets are liable to garnishment when the bishops are found negligent.
The bishops may claim to hold those assets for the benefit of the various diocesan charities, but those charities have no legal claim to those assets beyond those established by the bishops themselves. If a diocesan charity has been endowed with its own trust fund, then that trust would be protected, but we know that few bishops run their dioceses as a series of interlocking trust directorships.
Mulopwepaul:
Don't get too hung up on general respondiat superior/negligent supervision principles. Those are fine, of course, but they only tell part of the story.
The reason the abuse scandal is so appalling is that the bishops knowingly (not negligently or recklessly!) allowed sex offenders to continue working with children, and they attempted to shield them from criminal liability. We should hold the dioceses responsible not primarily because they failed to supervise adequately, because they were the least-cost avoider, or because we need to compensate the victims and going to the dioceses makes the most sense. Rather, we should hold them responsible for their contribution to the acts.
Seamus:
Also, I might add that the entire rationale for punitive damages is to deter wrongdoing. For that to work, the burden has to fall on the actual wrongdoer.
Not quite. We're not just trying to deter direct wrongdoing; we're also trying to deter negligent supervision and, as I mentioned above, contribution to the crime.
We're not just trying to deter direct wrongdoing; we're also trying to deter negligent supervision and, as I mentioned above, contribution to the crime.
Negligent supervision, if it violates a legal standard of care, *is* direct wrongdoing. Again, imposing punitive damages, not on those who were negligent, but on the faithful in the pews, or the beneficiaries of Church programs (which is where any award of punitive damages on a diocese would in fact fall), does nothing to further the deterrent purpose of punitive damages.
I might also add that, traditionally, punitive damages aren't imposed for mere negligence. They usually require wilful or reckless conduct, or at least "gross" negligence (whatever that means).
And in many cases, we're not talking about mere or reckless negligence, we're talking about accessories after the fact.
Commenting by HaloScan
