Pope Benedict and the Irish bishops have issued a communiqué.
For his part, the Holy Father observed that the sexual abuse of children and young people is not only a heinous crime, but also a grave sin which offends God and wounds the dignity of the human person created in his image.
The Holy Father also pointed to the more general crisis of faith affecting the Church and he linked that to the lack of respect for the human person and how the weakening of faith has been a significant contributing factor in the phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors.
Good words, but only words.
Although Benedict has acted more strongly against priest-abusers than any pope since Pius V, he has not really acted against bishops who have abused or against bishops who have tolerated abuse.
Bishops who have committed sexual abuse remain bishops: they could be laicized, like Bishop Fernando Lugo of Paraguay was when he was elected president But these criminal bishops remain bishops “in good standing” in the Church.
Cardinal Law was given a luxurious post in Rome and sits on my important committees. A few Irish bishops have been forced to resign because of public outrage, but of all the bishops who have tolerated sexual abuse, only a handful have suffered any consequences beyond having to issue apologies written by their lawyers.
Having read hundreds of cases, I wonder whether many of the abusers are atheists, in fact whether some of the bishops are atheists. It is hard to imagine a believer who thought he would stand before the judgment of God who would enact, tolerate, and enable such blasphemous sacrileges.
It would not be the first time the clergy and hierarchy was riddled with unbelief – the weakness of faith in the French clergy of the 18th century was unmasked by the Revolution.
What can i say?
U R RIGHT!
We need to see bishops, cardinals and priest kick out of their jobs. I am tired of words and more words. We need action now!!
I ask:
How many bishops r in jail?
o, nada, zitch.
Leon, this response from one Helen McGonegal is worth noting:
“I do not gather the Pope acknowledged that he co-authored the letter with Secretary of State Bertone, when Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, in May of 2001 reaffirming the stance the Crimes of Solicitation like child molesation are to be kept secret under penalty of excommunication. The Pope was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and has had longstanding knowledge of these crimes of child rape. He is complicit in keeping it secret all these years and obstructing justice.”
One more point: Nobody can (or should) the bishops to hold themselves accountable — or, sadly, the Pope to do so — because they are all products of the same closed bureaucratic system that reinforces the attitudes of arrogance and self-protection at all costs.
How can the Pope keep the bishops in line, or how can the bishops keep themselves in line, when the College of Cardinals votes for one of their own number to fill the sede vacante? Talk about structural incest!
Bishops have got to be held accountable. I don’t know how long it will take Church leaders to get this. One would think that given our teaching on original sin and human weakness, as well as the consensus of so many saints regarding the dangers of being a bishop (St. John Chrysostom said that the floor of Hell was paved with the skulls of bishops and he was one himself!), the men in the hierarchy would be glad for some limits on their power. Cardinal Law’s Roman appointment is a scandal.
My understanding of the document on crimes of solicitation is that it is somewhat more limited than many people think (though it may still not be to their liking). I believe it deals exclusively with sex (real, attempted or proposed) during celebrations of the sacrament of penance. It does not address any acts of molestation, etc. that occur outside of the confessional. Victims and their family members are NOT asked to refrain from going to the civil authorities to demand justice regarding any such violation in or out of confession (OK, not explicitly in this document anyway). The document requires certain parts of any Church trial that results from such a violation of confession to be kept secret. That might be because of the “Seal” on anything said or done in the sacramental forum. As I said, that may still not be to everyone’s liking.
“…the men in the hierarchy would be glad for some limits on their power.”
“…the men in the hierarchy would be glad for some limits on their power.”
Father Michael, the men in the hierarchy are ambitious careeerists. Why would they want any limits on their power, since those limits would thwart their ambitions?
I keep hoping the guys in charge are more of a mixed bag Joe. But St. John Chrysostom said the thing about Bishops’ skulls paving Hell at a time when the Church had already been legal and official for many decades. Being a Bishop was no longer a practical guarantee of exile or martyrdom. Maybe the careerist had started to come forward, looking for pomp, palaces and social prestige. This may have been what led the Eastern Church to choose (the laity and priests have a say) its Bishops from the ranks of monks. I have often thought that this was preferable to drawing them from the ranks of canon lawyers, seminary rectors (without pastoral experience), and monsignori. Then again, I have Orthodox relatives and have Eastern sympathies
Fr. Michael, I’m sure a few bishops *aren’t* ambitious careerists. Unfortunately, I think the ones who aren’t are outweighed by the ones who are. It’s the natural bi-product of a system in which leadership is isolated from the people’s legitimate concerns (so much so that the “leaders” can ignore canon law without consequence), and the people have no effective procedures to resolve and redress grievances.
I believe that Ezekiel 34 and Matthew 23 reflect the true nature of the Catholic hierarchy — and not just Catholic hierarchy but leadership in Christianity across the board.
Sorry for the pessimistic assessment, Fr. Michael, but I’m rather cynical when it comes to human nature. If Christ didn’t die on the cross and rise again, the secular existentialists (Sartre, Camus) would be right.
The Holy Father is speaking to the wrong people. Over the years, many Victims of Clergy Sexual Violation have attempted to speak with someone in authority at the Vatican, only to be turned away, escorted out by armed guards. Perhaps it is time for the Vatican to open it’s doors, and for the Holy Father, as the Vicar of Christ, to open his heart to the sufferings of HIS Innocent Children. The Victims have lost everything; some have even lost Faith in a Loving and Merciful GOD. The Bishops, on the other hand, are clammering to hang on to their wealth and power. Ask Yourselves: “To Whom Would Almighty GOD Give HIS Valuable Time ?”
Adding to Ms. McGonegal: Yes Ratzinger authored the 2001 document “Grave Delicts Reserved to the Vatican” which, among other things, revealed the 1962 secret document Crimen sollicitationis. In 2004 we used the 2001 letter to add Jospeh Ratzinger as a defendant in a clergy sex abuse case because the perp was an international fugitive from justice. In early 2005, Ratzinger, through his lawyers, entered an appearance and filed his Answer in US District Court in Houston. He was a defendant in that case when JP2 died. We predicted his election by a conclave in which each and every cardinal had been a recipient of the 2001 letter. Heres why. Ronald Reagan extended diplomatic recognition to the Holy See, thus making the pope a head-of-state. So, when the conclave elected Ratzinger, they had a compeling motive. Sure enough, after Ratzinger’s election, the Bush State Department entered the case, filed a “suggestion of head of state imunity,” and Judge Rosenthal had to let him out of the case. First time in history that a pope was elected while he was a defendant in a US federal court. Ironically, he spent the first two months of his “reign” under the thumb of a very learned Jewish woman, Hon. Lee Rosenthal. His dance of contrition with the Irish bishops is a farce.