Stroke of the pen, stroke of the pen, stroke of the pen, stroke of the pen. If we simply repeat the phrase loudly while putting our hands over our ears, we won't have to consider what popes could have done or said publicly, or should have done and said -- specifically things OTHER THAN "firing" a bishop -- compared to what they have done and said. Or what bishops could have done or said in fraternal correction.
But lest anyone think I'm being too critical of Mark's own straw-man argumentation, please know that I realize that we get the Mark Shea we deserve, so it's really my fault that Mark argues the way he does.
The not entirely unreliable wikipedia tells us the following about Cardinal McCarrick:
"On May 16, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI accepted the resignation of Cardinal McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington, DC...
"On 12 March 2007 it was announced that Cardinal McCarrick will become a Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies."
My sources reveal that the Pope does not have authority over the CSIS. Has the petition for McCarrick's removal from office been sent to the wrong address?
I've tried to read what the Holy Father says about the relative authority of bishop and Pope in the book "God's Word." Not having an abstract sort of mind I didn't follow the meaning of what he wrote. Probably I would need to go back over it, but perhaps I won't follow any more successfully if I read it more than once.
His Holiness said good and necessary things about the Scandal during his visit. He's obviously an exceptionally fine priest and evangelist, and a good man. I've gotten a great deal of inspiration from his more popular writing.
Good and necessary things aside, the scandal has been something very near a calamity in terms of the Church's moral authority. If the Church once woke to find itself Arian, it may very well have woken up recently to find itself an object of ridicule and scorn. This is at a moment in history when it needs its moral authority desperately. To *only* assign evil-doing priests to successive assignments - as you describe the actions of one bishop - is the ecclesiastical equivalent of deliberately sleeping on guard duty while an enemy attack is imminent. We are in the midst of a deadly cosmic war.
Perhaps the Holy Father is so immensely wise that he knows that sanctity is even now working its way upward from the ranks of the faithful. Not being wise or well-informed I'm in no position to judge. Many of us do have a need to know, or sense, that something is happening to heal us.
You don't always need a new ecclesiology. Pressure can be put on an Archbishop in other ways, but it must be done locally. Take this excertp from the NYT about the Abp paetz case:
"Last year, after demands for an investigation by priests and lay leaders of the diocese, the Vatican was pressed into an investigation of reports that Archbishop Paetz made homosexual advances to teenage seminarians. Archbishop Paetz denied the reports, saying he was the victim of a media-orchestrated smear campaign. In November, the Vatican sent representatives to Poznan to interview priests and seminarians, some of whom confirmed the reports. Archbishop Paetz repeated his denial of any wrongdoing today. Addressing priests and lay people assembled in the Poznan cathedral for Holy Thursday Mass, he said his resignation was not the result of a Vatican verdict against him, but of a desire for ''unity and stability'' among Polish Catholics, according to news agency reports."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
ful...750C0A9649C8B63
One useful thing to note about the bishop thing is that the Vatican, specifically the pope, has direct authority over who occupies the various local Sees all over the world.
The various metaphorical qualities of bishopness are important, but they in no way prevent the pope from removing or reassigning various bishops if he were motivated to do so. Really, to that extent Rod is right to emphasize the "stroke of the pen", _if_ we agree that the bishop's conduct deserves it (which frankly seems to me to be a much more plausible point of contention).
Oddly enough, the popes and The Situation remind me of W and his handling of Katrina. The fact that Katrina occurred (and most of the response to it) was not the President's fault, and he was blamed (including by Mark IIRC) for more than he was culpable. Nonetheless the President did not handle it well.
As for bishops who do not themselves molest boys, but protect those who do; there is a canon that requires that priests who have sex with minors be punished. Bishops who never apply this canon are themselves breaking canon law. There might be a case for sometimes not applying this canon, but there cannot be a case for never applying it - which is what happened.
In any case, the approach of only removing bishops who are themselves guilty of sexual abuse, but not removing those who cover up sexual abuse, is wrong for reasons that are almost too obvious to mention. The moral guilt, the harm done to the Church, and the impediment to exercise of a bishop's pastoral task, are as great in the case of a bishop who systematically covers up sexual abuse as in the case of one who commits it. This moral guilt and harm are the sort of evil that canonical punishments are designed to combat in the first place.
I don't see why it should be so hard to accept that the Pope is following a mistaken policy in his dealings with the bishops. Popes can and do make mistakes in the practical sphere. You don't help them, it seems to me, by being reluctant to admit the existence of their more obvious mistakes.
Calling the Pope's responsibilities with respect to the appointing or deposing of bishops "micromanaging" seems like it risks opening the Investiture Controversy.
At the very least it is an anemic conception of the episcopacy.
The Bishops teaching in Christ's name. They are not "local contractors" whose service we can dispense with if we find it lacking.
Since the Pope does nothing other than teach in Christ's name, then the Bishops teach in the Pope's name as well.
If we simply repeat the phrase loudly while putting our hands over our ears, we won't have to consider what popes could have done or said publicly, or should have done and said -- specifically things OTHER THAN "firing" a bishop -- compared to what they have done and said.
That analysis cuts both ways, Doofus. How many genocidal priests and bishops did Benedict XVI and JPII personally depose, discipline, or otherwise fraternally correct in Rwanda? What about Pius XII and those clerics complicit in the Holocaust?
Granted, one can make the case that giving repeated reprieves to child rapists is a crime worse than assisting genocide, and it's the former that really requires Vatican-led overhauls, but if that's your case, you need to make it explicitly.
As it is, this seems like one more case of Americans demanding that their particular grievances be met with extra-special measures.
I'd just like to see Rome take away the red cardinal's hats of bishops who covered up pederasty. That would be fraternal correction that did not affect in any way the theology of holy orders, since elevation to cardinalship is an honorific and not a sacrament.
I'd just like to see Rome take away the red cardinal's hats of bishops who covered up pederasty.
This should be done publicly, with the cameras rolling if possible. The Pope should run up to the one about to be de-cardinalated, grab the hat of his head Three Stooges-style saying "give me that!", throw it on ground and stomp on it. Then the Pope should announce "that ought to show you", preferably in Latin.
Pauli...or he could run over the hats with the Popemobile!
Mr. Shea
RE: 800 lbs guerrilla
I suspect that the 800 lbs guerrilla sitting in the room is the serious sin of homosexuality among members, both clerical and lay, of the American Catholic Church bureaucracy.
We can have saintly bishops appointed to every diocese in the USA but if this matter is not addressed or even acknowledged I imagine that they will make little headway cleaning up the mess.
If A Bishop finds that his chancery, seminary, charities, Catholic Schools, Catholic hospitals and religious orders in the diocese, along with the secular media, academia, Courts, politicians and others are dominated by militant homosexuals intent on committing and promoting serious sin then he is, from a worldly perspective, all bit helpless.
(If I was writing this in Canada I might be subject to arrest.)
Mr. Dreher is brilliant. But he cites as an authority on this matter a Richard Sipes who is an example of the problem we Catholics face. After the scandal broke in my neck of the woods Mr. Sipes appeared as a speaker at a VOTF meeting which IMO opinion degenerated into a pro-abortion rally.
Mr. Sipes made no effort to clarify the Church's teaching's on abortion at this highly publicized event. Instead he launched an attack not on the scandal but on the Faith. Mr. Sipes is a former Monk who like Martin Luther abandoned his vows for a wife and also like Luther is also very critical of the Church's teachings on human sexuality.
Mr. Sipes does not see homosexuality as a disordered inclination as the Church teaches. He sees no problem with homosexual priests and religious. He appears to question whether of not the act of sodomy is a serious sin. I would respectfully suggest to Mr. Dreher that the former monk is part of the problem not the solution.
If we Catholics are to fix this problem we must acknowledge the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts, the inherent psychological disorder of this affliction and embrace holy purity.
Until we do shuffling Bishops around may prove futile in the long run.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Interestingly, and regrettably, you almost never hear a homily about sexual sin these days. I suspect that has something to do with the "elephant in the room".
"I suspect that the 800 lbs guerrilla sitting in the room is the serious sin of homosexuality among members, both clerical and lay, of the American Catholic Church bureaucracy."
I suspect you're right.
BTW, Mr. Comerford, that's usually spelled 'gorilla.' But perhaps the other word is just as appropriate.
Pavel Chichikov:
Thank you for the correction. However I am barely literate (I am just starting to appreciate poems in general and your work in particular.) Please do not expect too much from me.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
No apologies necessary. Probably the only artists more ignorant than poets are actors.
God bless,
Pavel
Recent events prompted me to write this:
HOW SMOOTH IS EVIL…
How smooth is evil, how uncanny in its mimicry
Which can dispense philanthropy and sympathy,
Pronounce full and sufficient orthodoxy,
Display its pious courtesy, gentility
But if there is no continence of will,
No sacrifice of appetite, that it be stilled,
Then every outward charity infects and kills -
No loving is that is an exercise in skill
The outward drape of inner base intent
Impoverished and soiled, impaired and bent
Will not be straightened by its sentiment -
Appearance of a good is evil’s armament
But evil will reply: I am combined
And mixed, for excellence and ill I was designed
Pavel
April 28, 2008
"Many of us do have a need to know, or sense, that something is happening to heal us."
I have been visiting Mark's blog for many years, and have to say that Mr. Chichikov can be counted to provide us with many wise words. I am going to appropriate the above line and write to my bishop. We need their example to live the Gospel of Life. Personally, I feel deeply bothered for my children and other children with all of muck and distractions of things and acquiring things. I feel a need to counter it, but it is overwhelming. We need our bishops and priests to lead and to be examples of being a--in the words of an elderly priest I know-- Happy Warriors for Christ.
It is my feeling too that the Church's moral authority has been damaged at a time when families, the poor, the oppressed need Her to speak, to teach, and to lead. yes, the Church is doing such, though sadly it is badly crippled at this time.
Flawlessly logical Mark. This is the best line.
>we're talking about what Dreher's conception of the Church is. He professes an Orthodox ecclesiology, but still appears to resist that at heart. At the same time, he also doesn't seem to really grasp a Catholic ecclesiology, either.
I reply: His chief problem has always been He feels alot about this issue but he doesn't think. At his own admission Reason wasn't a the forefront of his "convertion" from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.
Dreher cites some Synod in Alaska which got rid of a troublesome bishop but convenantly forgets the Vatican HAS twice excommunicated Archbishop Milingo. Additionally we can read Pete Vere (cited on Mark's Blog) about the improvements made at Boston & other Bishops who have improved their Diocees.
Why does he resist Orthodox ecclesiology? Because based on what he has said I don't believe he believes the EOC is really the True Church. It's nothing more than the defaut church he has settled on since losing his Catholic Faith.
Indeed I suspect he doesn't really believe a True Church exists appart from some neo-Prot concept of a unity of all true believers.
But I have said this all before & other less hostle than me have said it to him. He doesn't want to go there because it would mean he might have to return to somewhere.
"It is my feeling too that the Church's moral authority has been damaged at a time when families, the poor, the oppressed need Her to speak, to teach, and to lead. yes, the Church is doing such, though sadly it is badly crippled at this time."
The general assault on morality and culture is an assault on humanity. Please don't anyone make the mistake of thinking that this sociocultural aggression is merely a media event of local significance. I sense very little awareness that we are involved in a universal war for souls. But we are.
Interestingly, and regrettably, you almost never hear a homily about sexual sin these days. I suspect that has something to do with the "elephant in the room".
I could make a long list of sins I almost never hear a homily about, including many I hear mentioned much less often than sexual sins.
I don't think it's because the priesthood is full of, say, perjurers, or of Catholics who don't go to Mass on Sundays.
I think it's because few priests know how to preach effectively, to American Catholics, against specific sins.
And by "effective," I don't just mean enthusiastic handshakes after Mass from people who never commit that sin anyway, but a change of heart in those who do.
Excellent article, Mark.
One of the things that has persistently frustrated me about this conversation is that it seems to revolve around the assumption that the bishops, or at least a handful by name, are definitely guilty of the sort of thing for which they ought to be removed.
They may be, of course. But it's not the pope's job to prove it; and demanding that he remove bishops because really bad allegations have been made against them is ultimately to decide that strong suspicions equal proof of malfeasance.
Several points and questions:
1. Mark has given a logical explanation of why the Pope has not purged the Bishops who participated in the cover-up. Whatever the reason may be, it would be very helpful if someone of authority in the Vatican would offer an explanation themselves. If the hard-to-understand policy is based on a necessary point of theology, then that point ought to be clearly explained by someone in authority.
2. I would not bet the rent that the American scandal is unique to our part of the RCC. Ireland, Poland, and Austria have had their own well-publicized problems. Human nature and temptation are the same everywhere. God only knows what remains hidden in the rest of the world ... in places that lack (a) a free press, and (b) an anti-authoritarian culture, and (c) a pro-plaintiff legal system, and (d) greedy lawyers.
3. Back to ecclesiology ... if the Papal policy (no stroke-of-pen purge of the malfeasant hierarchs) is based on acceptance of an Eastern view of the Episcopacy, why not have the Pope formally and openly decree this, redefining his authority in a way that would be acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox. At least this way, we'd get an end to the Schism. As things are now, we have formal Papal claims that are the main block to reunion with the Orthodox, and Popes who do not use the fullness of the authority that they claim.
Lee
Devil's advocate comment: 'stroke of the pen' advocates would say that if anybody in the hierarchy SHOULD have the evidence available to him, it's the Holy Father. If Rome looked into what was going on in the US, it was the CDF that did, or should have done, the looking. So the argument would be that either the previous Pope or Cardinal Ratzinger was deficient in intellectual and pastoral curiosity if the CDF didn't investigate events that were leaving Catholic dioceses paying out millions in lawsuits. And if, having uncovered evidence of malfeasance or simple incompetence on the part of the American bishops, the present Pope refuses to remove those individuals from office, he is at worst part of the cover-up himself, and at best, clueless about the damage done to his brother bishops' credibility.
OTOH, if, as head of the CDF, Pope Benedict discovered that there was no really actionable evidence that would justify removing a bishop from his post, well, there ya go. There're also different views about whether Maciel's retirement and invitation to lead a quiet life of prayer and penance was a soft landing or a quiet smackdown. fwiw. Then-Card R's reaction to the ABC news reporter who asked him about Maciel - slapping the guy's hand - is kinda interesting. Some reporters should probably get slapped more often, but I'm surprised and grateful we didn't hear about it endlessly when he got elected.
...it would be very helpful if someone of authority in the Vatican would offer an explanation themselves..
Isn't it obvious?
The primary goal of the bishops in handling abuse cases was to "avoid scandal."
And bishops who governed so as to avoid scandal were not defying the Holy See; they were doing what was
expected of them.
I wonder how many credible allegations against Judas were brought to the Lord. And I can just see the folks screaming about how a man who was unfaithful in his testing of loyalty - 3 times - could ever be considered REALLY God's choice for pope.
Pavel Chichikov wrote:
"I sense very little awareness that we are involved in a universal war for souls. But we are."
Of course we are! But the Devil's great trick is to make each of us think that he speaks only our own personal language, softly in our own ear, and that we struggle alone.
For the record: According to a report at ocanews.org, the reason Bishop Nikolai agreed to step down (temporarily, for one month only, BTW) is that his own direct participation in alleged sexual crimes came up in an OCA investigative report.
That story is far from over, and it certainly does not buttress Mr. Dreher's claim that his own jurisidiction handles bishops' malfeasance so much better than the Catholic Church does.
Mr. Penn: I do not think Mark is saying that JPII and B16 have operated from an Orthodox model. It's a more Eastern model in the sense that it's not the papacy of Gregory VII. But neither is it the mere "first among equals / primacy of honor" model advocated by the Orthodox. It entails real power and authority -- as adumbrated, for instance, in the writings of Popes Damasus and Leo and in the conciliar decrees of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.
However, as any corporate employee can readily attest, there is a huge difference between authority, on the one hand, and micromanagement on the other. As someone who has suffered under the latter management style for the past 8-plus years, believe me--there's a difference. 
"And I can just see the folks screaming about how a man who was unfaithful in his testing of loyalty - 3 times - could ever be considered REALLY God's choice for pope."
That's ripe!
I believe Pope Peter I went on to lead a life of holiness and led and encouraged others to do so.
How can you remotely compare Peter to the current bishops is beyond me.
A case might be made for the Pope handling things as he has, I understand it but don't agree with it.
Lee Penn noted above that it would be helpful for the Vatican to address how it handled the crisis from when it became aware of the problem through the current day. I agree with that.
Forgiveness is a mandate from Our Lord but it's hard to imagine him giving Peter the keys if he was guilty of covering up or abusing the ones he stated that no one should hinder unto Him.
That's an unbelievable comparison.
If there had been widespread complaints against Bishops by mainstream Catholics they, like Archbishop Paetz in Poland, would have been removed. Even in the Orthodox churches priests and bishops who have the support of the national church are typically not removed. Just contrast the failure by the ROC to do anything about bishops who had spied for the Communists with the swift reaction in Poland when one bishop who had collaborated was about to be promoted Archbishop. I'm glad to hear that things worked out well in Rod's OCA, but the OCA is not typical of how things work in the various Orthodox Churches. The real question is: why were American Catholics so much more complacent than Polish Catholics?
Why, for example, is Cardinal Mahony still Archbishop of LA? Because he has the support of the vast majority of LA Catholics. Why was there zero chance that McCarrick might be removed? Because people--including people in the secular media, BTW--liked the very liberal archbishop. Note, however, that, as soon as McCarrick was required by Church law to submit his resignation, it was accepted by the Pope. It's kind of hard to have McCarrick removed from office now, given that he retired in 2006.
Mr Shea
RE: THe tough broad from Tuscony
Mr. Deher posted the following comment on his blog today regarding this matter;
"Besides, there really are very, very few effective ways for Catholic clergy and laity angry about the situation to protest. I don't think lay Catholics, on the whole, are nearly as angry about the corruption that led to this scandal as the scandal objectively warrants, but having once been in their shoes, I also know well that there's really not a lot they can do. The bishops are free to not give a rat's rear end, and to suffer no consequences. Rome will not hold them accountable. Nor will their brother bishops. And laypeople have no mechanism for doing so."
It has been said that the Church has never had a "golden age". There have always been scandals, heretics and invading hordes for Catholics to deal with. Indeed for most Catholic this has always the norm. Our recourse has been to amend our own lives, pray, make sacrifices and plead for reform.
A few centuries ago when the Papacy was languishing in a French captivity, a tough and holy broad from Tuscony almost single handedly brought it back to Rome.
I do not think that St Catherine would have been either very surprised by the current scandal nor very worried because there did not exist an effective bureaucratic process for Catholics to register protest.
When a Catholic can pray to God, Our Lady, the Saints and the Angels who needs one?
I think Mr. Deher for all of his brilliance misses the point. We are at war with the world, the flesh and the devil. We register our protest by prayer, fasting and sacrifice. In a way we get the bishops that we deserve. The roots of the present scandal are our own sins.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
I'm glad to hear that things worked out well in Rod's OCA
Be not deceived. Do not take Mr. Dreher's claims at face value. And that's putting it mildy. See ocanews.org -- just for starters.
Things are tough all over. There is not a religious communion on God's green earth that does not have more than its share of scandals, rotten apples, intractable problems, etc.
It's the human condition. Ultimately, ISTM, what Mr. Dreher cannot deal with is the realit and implications -- of Original Sin.
Can I make a plaintive remark on the expiring thread about no-one responding to the point I made above? Bishops are required by canon law to discipline pedophiles. None of them did. If not obeying canon law on an issue crucial to the well being of the church is not itself a canonically punishable act, what is the point of canon law? How is the Church then in any way actually governed by law instead of the whim of the people in charge?
John L, can you identify the canon law that you cite? I'm not doubting you, but I am not a canon lawyer, and would like to read the law to which you refer. If I read it, then I might have some idea as to what discipline a Bishop must, or may, impose. (BTW, I'm pretty sure that stating that "none of them did" is incorrect. Priests have been laicized for their sexual crimes against minors--certainly many Bishops did not act, but "none of them"??)
John L:
Please cite the Canon in which "Bishops are required by canon law to discipline pedophiles".
Thank you
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Let's bring this down to exactly what people seemingly expected bishops to do...with whatever knowledge they had of a case they were to immediately act by bringing the accused to law enforcement and have them incarcerated. No? I mean no other measure would please the now irate public. If only some social service agency were contacted (which only the unidentifiable usually do - ever) there would have been exactly the same track taken by secular procedures as is now criticized only in the Church...a psychiatric evaluation ordered by the courts; treatment and at that time (when it was not as yet declared untreatable-pedophilia-the least percentage of cases), following the medical community's final report, probably released into the public as is done today with sex offenders living all over the place. So, super-human clerics with even less understanding of such subjects (most probably entered priestly studies out of grade school) than law enforcement and social service/courts, IOW, those right on the streets, were to do something above and beyond what was commonly done and still is.
C K: Bingo (to use a Catholic term).
CK. I agree that the responsibility for contacting law enforcement would rest on the guardians of the children who were abused rather than on the Bishops.
However, we are talking about ministers of the Church not secular schoolteachers, coaches, or uncle joe. They are and should be held to a higher standard.
It's like a police officer raping or killing. Police officers have the public's trust as clergy once had. When a policer officer pulls you over most people defer to the officer's authority and will do things requested of them out of obediance to that authority that they wouldn't do if asked by a stranger in any other circumstance i.e. get out the car, submit to a search, even get in the back of the squad car if ordered.
It's the same with the clergy. Most people, especially children, will defer to the clergy's authority. That's another henious aspect of the crime. The betrayal of the trust placed in the authority of the priesthood.
The Bishops, in hindsight, should have been more concerned for the office of the clerical state and the responsibility of that office than to allow anyone accused of betraying the public's trust to continue to exert such authority.
It's asking for the same kind of responsible oversight you'd see even with a bank teller who is suspected of stealing or a train conductor suspected of drinking or drug abuse.
Airlines require random drug & alcohol screenings on pilots never even accused or suspected of abusing drugs and alcohol, to insure the Airlines that their pilots do not betray the trust placed in them.
At the very least (absent criminal charges being made) when confronted by angry or concerned families with allegations of abuse the Bishops should have shown more care for the authority of the office of the priesthood and the public's trust than does a bank or airline.
For the record: In our diocese (Charlotte, NC), suspected abuse cases are to be reported to the bishop's office. The Chancery will then immediately contact law enforcement. The policy explicitly states that this is not meant to prevent the layperson who suspects the abuse from reporting to law enforcement also. IOW: Reporting to the bishop's office does not tie the hands of the laity.
I really don't see how we can possibly do any more. If both the Chancery and the laity are reporting to law enforcement--well, doesn't that pretty much cover it? (In terms of reporting the abuse, I mean. We obviously have other programs, too, to prevent abuse, to counsel victims, etc. etc.)
The 1983 Code states;
Can. 1395
§2. A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.
The 1917 code in force up to 1983, states (only in Latin I am afraid);
Can 2359
§2. Si delictum admiserint contra sextum decalogi praeceptum cum minoribus infra aetatem sexdecim annorum, vel adulterium, stuprum, bestialitatem, sodomiam, lenocinium, incestum cum consanguineis aut affinibus in primo gradu exercuerint, suspendantur, infames declarentur, quolibet officio, beneficio, dignitate, munere, si quod habeant, priventur, et in casibus gravioribus deponantur.
It is a stronger rule than the 1983 one (surprised anyone?) as the penalty is specifeid to a least be suspension.
I take it that the bishop is responsible for applying this law in his diocese.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
